I am so happy to have won our crit already! I'd like to thank the 75+ other riders who crashed out of it which allowed me to take the win! This puts a whole new dimension into my periodization schedule. Now if I can just win Wente and Districts before they take place............

WarrenG wrote:Vino,

If you hope to join the "Uber" club you should at least know how to spell it. The "Ubber" club is the Wal-Mart knock off, and unless you like Mr. Sam cola and stale saltine crackers you're not going to enjoy their airport club lounge at the Chico International Airport.

Oh. I thought we were talking about Dr. Christian Ubber. His lounge is full of chain smoking, leather clad Berliner girls with way too much black mascara and loose morals.

Uber. That explains everything.

I have to say, you guys are right.
"Uber" is a fluid term, like "liberal" or "cute."
I mean, one man's uber is another man's lapdog, right?

Defining an Uber is like what the Supreme Court said about defining pornography: "I know it when I see it."

For me, Cat 1's and 2's are ubers. Not because at some point in their career they were good enough to earn 25 points in a calendar year as a Cat 3. Not because they've had all that experience zooming around with other pro/1/2's. Not because of their pride, their stature, their talent...

No, for me it's a Supreme Court thing. It's 'cause they make me SCHA-WING!! when I race with them. :oops:

Vino,

If you hope to join the "Uber" club you should at least know how to spell it. The "Ubber" club is the Wal-Mart knock off, and unless you like Mr. Sam cola and stale saltine crackers you're not going to enjoy their airport club lounge at the Chico International Airport.

The Jesster wrote:I've got to say that I am sooooo happy about Menlo Park. Not because it turns out that I finished 6th instead of 7th (a point!), but because upon further research .... ready? ....

ALL THE GUYS IN THE WINNING BREAK WERE UBERS!!!
(except this tag-along zebra)

I'm dying to see how Warren rationalizes that one!!

I guess we need to know the definition of Ubber. Because if it's strictly Cat 2 or above, there's a hundred or so guys who now qualify. And will this also include folks with the points to upgrade to 2 but who don't? Because I was going to hold off upgrading till the end of the season (points willing) but shoot, if I can join the Ubber club (have you seen their airport lounge?) it'd be worth it.

Cat 2's? Yes. "Ubers"? No, except Dan.

(Check the records to find out how many wins were collected by the other guys last year.)

But if you believe they are "ubers" and you are "soooo happy" about having done well in a race with them then you confirm what I've been saying all along about one of the benefits of racing with the 45+ 1,2's.

I had to reread your post Vino to be sure you said "poker" game with an "o", otherwise I thought you were going to be measuring each others'... you know .... (No wonder you all conceded it to Bernie)

I've got to say that I am sooooo happy about Menlo Park. Not because it turns out that I finished 6th instead of 7th (a point!), but because upon further research .... ready? ....

ALL THE GUYS IN THE WINNING BREAK WERE UBERS!!!
(except this tag-along zebra)

I'm dying to see how Warren rationalizes that one!!

The Steinbeck crit flyer has been changed to include 45+ Cat 1's, but only those with an LT of <280w, or an LT w/kg of <3.5. We'll be testing BTW.

And any Brokerage-backed mountains can stay home too, we've defaulted Sportbase to delete any entries containing "Morgan", "Webcor", "AMD" or non "VOS" above Cat 4. You'll have to contact Sportbase for your refund though.

Actually, to be honest, Bernie already won. Check the results. I'm lobbying for second, but I think we're having a poker game to sort things out.

Warren,

When Peter Came into the Pit for his flat tire was was saying how his spare wheel had problems. He couldn't back pedal due to the freewheel locking up before he even went back into the race. The wheel he put onto his bike after the flat had a known mechanical problem yet he choose to put that wheel on and renter the race. Since the wheel he put on had a known mechanical problem he wasn't granted a second free lap when he came into the pit due to his replacement wheel not working due to the freewheel. You generally don't get free laps for problems you could have avoided before entering the race.

First, Jess, good job. Don't let your (current) sub-uber status affect how you race, except do your best with who ever happens to be there. The mental side becomes important and thinking about negatives when the break is splitting in two isn't good. And like me, you're not just speaking on your own behalf, but on behalf of other 45+ 3's who aren't able to get into the winning break and/or the top places at least once in awhile.

Peter Tapscott, a 55+ guy from AV got a rear flat, actually a shredded tire. (Those were some nasty holes and ruts on the back straight!) Got it replaced, took his free lap and got back in the field. Soon after, the freehub body on that replacement wheel locked up-he could not coast because the chain kept wrapping around the cogs. He went into the pit and was told he could not have a free lap.

Some people think you only get one free lap per race (not true, you get one for each allowed mishap or mechanical thing that's not due to poor adjustment), and for whatever reason the locked up freehub body was either not deemed allowable, or somebody thought he was not allowed a second free lap. Peter didn't argue about it because I think he was one of the people unsure about multiple free laps or what constitutes an allowable mechanical.

So Peter takes off with another rear wheel ASAP and is soon caught by the break. (At least this is how it was related to me.) He was fine to do that and if the break had lapped the field he'd be back in contention in the 55+. After the race he can't go back and later argue that he should have been given a free lap because if that were the case he would have been allowed to rejoin the field (the place in the race he occupied before his allowed mishap), and putting him the break after a free lap would not be right.

It helps to know the rules, even when your HR is over threshold...

Quote:I'd like to go on record as saying that while warming up before the 45+ race I said to Jess that I thought a breakaway would survive to the finish and I listed off some of the "ubers" who might be in it. Not only did a break survive to the finish, but in his second race of the day, "sub-uber" Jess was in it, thereby adding to the argument sub-ubers can be competitive in some 45+ races. And this coming Saturday's race in Sacramento is the same one last year where fellow sub-uber Bernie was in the winning break in the 45+ race.

As I was suffering in the break, I actually thought to myself with some certainty that Warren was going to expose this fact on the Forum within 48 hours of the race. It nearly made me want to pull out of the break.

Yes, Warren made the call -- exactly as it unfolded. Damn it, it's true!!!

But I have to say that I was not uber-like in my contribution to the break. I'd mistakenly eaten lunch minutes before the race, and I had stomach seizing cramps for most of the break (which started really early, ~ lap 5).
I promised the ubers I was just along for the ride and wouldn't sprint for a placing, and then I suffered like hell trying to survive the cramps.

Anyway, I certainly wouldn't use that performance as an argument for parity. Those five guys who towed my zebra butt for 30+ minutes would certainly see it differently.

Warren - Did I understand you to say that one of the AV guys in the break was actually a lap down?

jonathan wrote:velogirl wrote:If my memory serves me, Coyote Creek Criterium also cancelled the Women's 4 race last year.

We had a 3/4 women field at our event yesterday. I would say a fairly high profile event. Paid $300 to 10 places. 2nd place was taken by a 10-year old girl, in a field sprint. It was a fun and exciting race to watch.

The field was far from full. When we made the crit schedule, it was either this field or a juniors field.

I fully support women's racing and juniors racing. Sometimes promoters just have to make choices.

`j

I would have loved to have been there (to race and to watch Michael). It was just too bad there was a conflicting women's event in the Bay Area.

Since the majority of riders are concentrated in the Bay Area, and since the Bay Area race had a seperate 4 race, I think that most opted to save on the drive time and race locally. (A combined category on a technical crit such as Tower can intimidate some 4s)

The Bay Area race had 29 Women in the 3 race and I believe the 4/35+ race sold out at 50.

Our team split between the two races. This was a tough choice because we prefer to race together. But we did so to support the events as best we could. We fielded 6 women at CVC and 6 at Menlo Park.

We have to make the same tough call for next weekend. And we know either way, the promoters are going to be frustrated. Elis has a nice letter about that to the promoters of the races this upcoming weekend here:
http://elfdontblog.blogspot.com/2007/03/and-on-more-positive-note.html

That being said, all of the Velo Bella riders who attended the CVC races had nothing but good things to say about it. I hope that if the scheduling conflicts are more in your favor next year, that you still consider holding the Womens 3/4 race again. And we'd all love a shot at that road race, if you decide to open it to amateur categories. Nothing but great feedback on that road race.

Thanks for all your work!

Sabine

Hey Warren,
I WAS involved in the crash though thankfully not the cause, but I do know who started it AND who caused it eventually, but I don't feel this forum is the place to address that issue or person. I don't know what other response there could have been for someone who has locked bars with someone after being bumped by them, then they squeeze you and take out your front wheel, but if you have an answer, I'm all ears. Again, I will fill you in Saturday if you'd like.
I meant that Cat 5 was not included in the 45+ race, which I think MIGHT have been the original thread of this column, I really can't (thankfully) remember anymore.
I will talk to El Presidente, and see what we can do about your suggestion of successive races being too difficult.
As far as tactics go, I PERSONALLY chased five AV riders down myself with less than 3 laps to go, and Martin chased, at the very LEAST, up to double (AV attacks) than what I did with 10 to go. I started counting because MS and VOS were trying to let the break go by blocking without being unsafe, and if you guys had a plan, then no offense, I don't understand and am definitely not aware of your tacics.

Jess must be off today, eh?

velogirl wrote:If my memory serves me, Coyote Creek Criterium also cancelled the Women's 4 race last year.

We had a 3/4 women field at our event yesterday. I would say a fairly high profile event. Paid $300 to 10 places. 2nd place was taken by a 10-year old girl, in a field sprint. It was a fun and exciting race to watch.

The field was far from full. When we made the crit schedule, it was either this field or a juniors field.

I fully support women's racing and juniors racing. Sometimes promoters just have to make choices.

`j

Bernie-
The flyer at your website includes 5's in the first race. Also, putting the 45, 35, and p123 races back to back to back makes it especially tough (and less appealing) for the riders within those groups who would normally want to do two races. A race for a different group between each of those would probably help attendance and revenue.

Re MP 45+ race:

The response to the first mistake became the bigger problem. It was almost right in front of me. The conversations about the increase in riders in the 45's with less than good skills are common, and similar to what you'll hear about races for 35+, as opposed to 35+ 123.

One of the AV's in the break was a 55+ and wasn't given a free lap for a mechanical problem (cassette body locked up), and then the break caught him. Not so good for several reasons.

There was one AV rider I know of who made a misguided effort or two, but the majority of what you might call "chasing" to bring back the break, wasn't. Why AV "chased" may not be obvious to a person not aware of our tactics. Tactics to win a race can be different from tactics to get a placing, yes?

Just for Kevin Metcalf and any other Cat 1's out there-

On Sunday May 30, our criterium 45+ Masters divsion will include all categories except 5's, contrary to some of our flyers which need to be corrected. So Kevin, call all the other 1's you know and tell them, we will be counting to see if all of you show up! Check out the flyer at http://www.vosracing.org for some of the correct details.

Now then, who called me a SUB-UBER?!

And as far as the two crashes at Menlo Park, at least the first one was caused by a VERY experienced rider (at least a Cat 3) on a very well known and seasoned team who should have known better than to do what was done. I'll fill you in on the details at Land Park this weekend if you're interested in it Warren.

AND, oddly enough, nobody approached me and requested to work with our team to chase down any possible Uber-infusions, even though my post offering this (for the second time this year) was a little late before the race. But in that race at Menlo Park, with 2 Alto Velo riders in the break that stayed out until the finish, Alto Velo chased the hardest to bring back thier own (It appeared that way anyway). Why?

I'd like to go on record as saying that while warming up before the 45+ race I said to Jess that I thought a breakaway would survive to the finish and I listed off some of the "ubers" who might be in it. Not only did a break survive to the finish, but in his second race of the day, "sub-uber" Jess was in it, thereby adding to the argument sub-ubers can be competitive in some 45+ races. And this coming Saturday's race in Sacramento is the same one last year where fellow sub-uber Bernie was in the winning break in the 45+ race.

Let the race result speak for itself. I yield my remaining time.

velogirl wrote:If my memory serves me, Coyote Creek Criterium also cancelled the Women's 4 race last year.

I know that Coyote Creek dropped their Cat 4 women's race last year but I'm not sure it fit into the category of being a high profile event. If you count Coyote Creek then the Elite 4 women and the elite 5 men each lost 3 existing races over the last two years but as I said the Cat 4 women loss was offest by the addition of a 3/4 women's race at San Rafael ( certainly a high profile event). Also the women 4 had a new race in the form of the Alameda Crit last year ( for those women 4s who didn't want to ride the 3/4 Crit at McLane) as well as the elite 5 men. Sausalito was another new high profile event that had a women's 3/4 race ( as well as a women's 1/2/3 race). This means that with the loss of Burlingame the Cat 4 women actually had one additional higher profile race in 06 vs 05. and let's not forget Visalia/Quad Knopf Sequoia Classic Criterium a back from the dead high profile event that had categories for 3/4 women and Cat 5 men last year. Yea if you only want to focus on the races that dropped events open to Cat 4 women in the last two years it looks like there is a negative trend. if you look at the big picture though and look at the new events that have included events open to Cat 4 women then I don't think things look that bad since the opportunities for cat 4 women to race are increasing as a whole and as I've pointed out earlier Cat 4 women have lots more race to choose from and the next largest racing regions.

Correct me if I'm remembering this wrong, but I think the masters 45+/55+ race was dropped from Burlingame in 2005 so the W4's could have their own race there. Then in 2006 the 45/55/65+ race was brought back and the W4 was dropped.

FWIW, the demographic http://www.ncnca.org/docs/demographics.shtml numbers show there are 224 W4's, and 715 men 45+ in the district, and at the end of 2006 it was 350 and 1000 respectively. Of course, the number of people who have a license is not as important as the number of riders who will show up on the day.

And for a promoter, if a rider will only come to the race if they can race competively at least once, and maybe twice in a day, consideration has to be given to the fact that some riders won't show up at all if only one race of the day is appealing to them, and if there is that one appealing race and another for training they'll pay two entry fees.

I don't think it's accurate to say that just because there are multiple fields for which a male masters rider would be eligible to enter that all of those choices are even available (full fields), and/or all that viable. For example, the 35+ 123 races are so filled with top-level 35's that a 45 year old cat 3 or 4 level rider realistically has no chance to be competitive in nearly any NorCal 35+ 123 race. They might be competitive in the 35+ 3,4 race or E3 or E4 race, if there's room in the field and a reasonable expectation of finishing upright.

If you say, well then that 45+ rider should downgrade to a category where they are competitve with riders 10-20 years younger. One problem is that most of those fields are already filled and it's gotten to the point where willing cat 5's and 4's can't get in the race even if they try to pre-register. And of course, the under 35 races are generally not as safe as the 35+ and 45+ races and the older riders are less willing to risk their health in the younger fields, so they stay home if that's their only option.

I think it would be a great help if we saw more options for the 5's, and eliminated the 5's from riding with 3's and above. A race for E5 and a race for 35+ 5's would cover the 5's, and would encourage safer racing in the 35+123 and 45+123 races, which would also encourage more participation from masters who sometimes stay home rather than deal with cat 5's in their races.

I can tell you for a fact that the 4's and 5's in the 45+ races are an increasingly dangerous problem each of the last 3 years, especially on relatively easy courses. The two crashes in the 45+ at Menlo Park were the result of riders with very poor skills and improper repsonses to a minor problem. Get rid of the 5's and maybe 4's and you'll have more of the 123's showing up to race.

Something else... With the huge number of masters men who have female friends and spouses who might like to try bike racing the reasonable options are virtually nil. This seems like a niche that has good potential, but when do W35+ get to race in a reasonably-sized group with at least somewhat similar abilities? Districts? Nat's? It seems odd to me that W35+ are grouped with W4's. Imagine if the 35+ men were grouped with men E4's?

A "lifetime" W3 gets to race with W12's or W4's including riders doing their first races. Neither sounds all that appealing to me, but maybe I'm wrong. Instead of adding W5 (which may not be possible anyway), add more races for W3's. If W5's came about who would they race with? Add another race just for W5's? Instead, add another race now for W3's (which would include all the former W4's who would upgrade if it meant they didn't have to race with the W12's most of the time).

Those of us who are active in women's racing are doing everything we can, but yes, our numbers mean that we generally rely on the promoters/teams to subsidize our races (as well as juniors). We understand that and trust me, we do not take it for granted. All of the women you see speaking out here on this thread have put their money and their time where their mouths are.

If we went by numbers only, we would have no elite women racing either as that is usually the smallest field. And forget about junior racing.

Women's racing is strong in our region because our region has a history of making room for them on the schedule, even when numbers were small. We are finally at a point where Cat 4 women's races can sell out. I don't know that that happens anywhere else in the country. I am so unbelievably proud of our region in achieving that.

We want the success to continue.

We are thankful to the promoters and teams who make those choices.

Velo Bella will continue to do our best to support those races that open their doors to us, at all category levels.

See you at Zamora/Visalia!

Sabine

Thanks for the numbers, Casey. You are constantly bringing logic to bear on our rampant emotionalism. You are a genuine mensch, my friend.

Is there a track racing subgroup? How often is a comment redirected to the track? I don't want to race on the track. I like to drift, to brake if necessary, and I get dizzy riding in small circles. Not to mention my feelings about driving to - or being in - San Jose! :shock:

Is it too personal to mention that I spent some significant kissy-face time at Menlo Park with Warren G.? In the love-fest atmosphere that the Velo Girls nurtured, we talked, we touched hands, we rode side-by-side -- sucking debris and small pets in our doubly massive wake.

So thank you Bernie for the passionate defense, but all is marvy in the peloton again. See you at the love-in in the park in Sac.

Now if I could only win back Mikey .... :cry: :cry: :cry:

Z-Man

If my memory serves me, Coyote Creek Criterium also cancelled the Women's 4 race last year.

velogirl wrote:
I think you've mistaken th present issue, Dan, which truly is that one entire population group (women 4) has been eliminated from a number of high profile races during the past two seasons.

In the last two years I believe that Cat 4 women have only lost the ability to do Burlingame ( last year) and Cat's Hill this year. Last year Cat 4 women got to take part in San Rafael which was a new high profile event. Cat 5 men got dropped from both of the Mclane races and Burlingame ( except for Cat 5s 45+). it seems the cat 5 elite men have lost more high profile events in the last two years than Cat 4 elite women.
velogirl wrote:
And for all the men who say that upgrading from CAT4 for the women is easy, how do you explain the women who race 20+ races each year and have been CAT4 for many years. CAT4 is a catch-all category for women, and along with the career CAT4s there is a constantly entering pool of highly fit, highly talented young women, pros from other sports, and genetic freaks. If you just look at the license numbers of many of the women racing CAT4, you'll see that many of them have been racing for 3, 4, or 5 years, which was one reason we lobbied for the institution of CAT5 with USAC (but you can find numerous threads about that elsewhere on this forum).

There are men who are career Cat 4s just like there are someone who are career Cat 4s. I don't see where this is a major problem. Not everyone is going to be good enough to upgrade out of Cat 4 in either gender. I'm sure if you study the records you could probably find some men who are basically career Cat 5s.

In looking at the race numbers from the past 3 years I think there is another issue the supporters of Cat 4 women's racing should be taking up.

IN 2004 Cat 4 women had the following racing opportunities

Cat 4 women only races 46
Cat 3/4 races 15
Open races 6
total racing opportunities 67

In 2005 Cat 4 women had the following racing opportunities
Cat 4 women only 41
Cat 3/4 women 14
Open races 9
total racing opportunities 64

In 2006 Cat 4 women had the following racing opportunities
Cat 4 women only races 41
Cat 3/4 races 22
Open races 13
total racing opportunities 76

Note that one reason why 2004 had more Cat 4 women only races and more racing opportunities than in 2005 was due to the first 4 Early Birds being treated as real races vs 2005 and 2006 where the first 4 Early Birds were treated as training events where riders were not placed.

The trend for the past couple of years has been for the number of Cat 4 only races to be held steady while the number of 3/4 races and open races are increasing. since in the past women, especially Cat 4s, have expressed a preference to ride in individual category races it seems a more important issue than the lack of Cat 4s at Cat's Hill would be to stop the increasing number of 3/4 races and push for a growth in the number of Cat 4 only races. In some cases though the growth in the number of 3/4 women's races has opened the door for Cat 3 women to have more racing opportunities since more races are offering a 3/4 women's race as well as a 1/2/3 race thus giving the Cat 3 women a chance to do two rides in a single day.

Dan said:

P.S. To the present issue, the key point is the W3, not the W4, who, as is pointed out, can upgrade upgrade relatively readily. W3 racing against W1 at a race of this caliber is often an exercise in lasting a few laps. This is not an elite-only event on the men's side: the women deserve a bit more.

I think you've mistaken th present issue, Dan, which truly is that one entire population group (women 4) has been eliminated from a number of high profile races during the past two seasons.

And for all the men who say that upgrading from CAT4 for the women is easy, how do you explain the women who race 20+ races each year and have been CAT4 for many years. CAT4 is a catch-all category for women, and along with the career CAT4s there is a constantly entering pool of highly fit, highly talented young women, pros from other sports, and genetic freaks. If you just look at the license numbers of many of the women racing CAT4, you'll see that many of them have been racing for 3, 4, or 5 years, which was one reason we lobbied for the institution of CAT5 with USAC (but you can find numerous threads about that elsewhere on this forum).

WarrenG wrote:The season is long here because the weather encourages it. We have more riders than any other region so it's natural that we have so many races that want to minimize conflict with other races that we spread them out over 10 months.

There's a difference between local and global optimization. Given the present system, promoters do the best they can, it is true. But consider two systems: a sports season and the political primaries. One is planned, the other is at best semi-planned. The result in the political primary race is primaries are too early, the season too extended. This is because each primary is seeking to optimize its significance: it's piece of the pie. However, in a planned system, everyone ends up better off: the pie gets bigger. A more compact season in which riders do the same (or more) number of races per year, but have more opportunity to race in their own category (how may races per year does the average racer doing at least one race actually do?) with riders at a relatively more similar phase of training. It will result in a greater fractional participation of members, and better preparation and race experience for those who would otherwise be racing the early season. Everyone wins.

I don't see many filled fields in July-August in the results archives. I wonder if these events would do better with a more focused schedule. It would be interesting to compare the number of races done per USAC member in New England (with an Apr?-Sep season) to here (with a Jan-Sep season).

Quote:The hard truth is that if the promoters will continue to subsidize the women's races that lose money at their event there needs to be some compensation in some way. Or maybe the promoters' continued charity is taken for granted?
That's correct -- clubs put on events as part of their obligation to sustain the sport. This is why sponsors are procured, as well as membership fees charged. Promoting the participation of younger riders of both sexes is considered a positive action by most. An 18-year-old woman and a 45-year-old man are not considered equal. Don't simply quote "total turn-out" as a sign the sport is as healthy as it could be.

I propose a system where a promoter presents races to the NCNCA with course, # of fields, acceptable dates, and preferred categories. The NCNCA then allocates dates and categories, with some negotiation to iron out the details, with some preference given to more traditional events. This will provide a template for the following year, with some stability. But promoters shouldn't be deciding all of what categories to allow. It should be part of the planning process.

Dan

P.S. To the present issue, the key point is the W3, not the W4, who, as is pointed out, can upgrade upgrade relatively readily. W3 racing against W1 at a race of this caliber is often an exercise in lasting a few laps. This is not an elite-only event on the men's side: the women deserve a bit more.

Quote:I don't see how this would work.
Not an unusual sentiment if you haven't raced in Europe.

Quote:Would everybody be able to sign up and race in this 1 field? (400-500 riders in a crit Shocked )
I guess this needs more explaining. There are races for every category, they are simply held in different locations and promoted by different clubs. The reason this works is that the effort to put on a race is so much less, and its impact on residents and businesses correspondingly lighter.

Unlike Warren's recollection the calendar in Northern France (and I'm sure in Belgium and Holland) has criteriums, circuit races, and road races. Mostly circuit races though. And there are races for 3 men's cats, masters, juniors, and one or two women's cats every week.

The only disadvantage French promoters might have is the fixed prize list, down to 20 places and well distributed. not top heavy. A potential downside for riders might be that they couldn't race in multiple cats per day or rideshare with anyone whose race was in a different location.

The upside is that you often have a choice of races, typically one hard and one easy, within a 150 mile drive. That and and the quality of courses, all selective and mostly attend by spectators, particularly the downtown evening crits. Those aspects would probably take a while to develop here, even though we have higher population density, but it's unlikely they will happen at all if we continue to impose our relatively provincial 1000lb elephant notion of all-day racing with multiple categories on every promoter and every municipality.

Yes, when I first started racing in the late 70's there were usually just a few events to cover everybody and we often raced downtown in a few hours total.

There was a one race for Senior 1,2's, another race that had Veterans (masters over 35) with the women and sometimes the juniors, and then one more race for the Senior 3,4's together. Sometimes the juniors got their own race with field sizes of 50-80 guys, and once in awhile the Veterans and women would get separate races. There might be 10-30 riders in the Veterans race, and often less than 10 women in their race. But yes, we finished all the racing in under 4 hours.

And when I became a senior in the 3's we were usually combined with the 4's or 2's, and the field limit was often 150 riders. The large field size wasn't really a problem though because the crashes and groups of gapped riders usually pared the field down to less than 50-60 riders by the end of the 10-15 mile criterium. An average cat 2 or cat 3 rider could expect to crash about once every 5-7 races, but I seemed to have a knack for staying upright and only crashed about once every 10 races, or roughly one crash for every 5-6 hours of racing in criteriums.

Now in Europe, they don't have many criteriums like here in the States, except in Holland and Belgium. The have road races on courses that are 3-10 miles long, several times a week, and all the 1's ride together, as do the 2's, and 3's, if there is a race for them-just like Roger says. Field sizes are often over 150 riders and if you don't make the front split that occurs soon enough on the narrow roads you just call it quits and come back a few days later to race again. And since you can find 2-4 races a week within 45-60 minutes drive of your house you'll eventually get into the front split and get to race competively to the finish.

Funny thing though, there aren't really that many masters racers and women racers over in Europe considering how many people are racing, and there also aren't that many good ones compared to a country like the US. This is even more obvious on the track where American masters as a group are far superior to their European counterparts. I can't imagine why that is.

And since our current format of racing isn't the right approach for growing the sport I can only wonder why the "European" format we used to have was so appealing that the total number of racers in the US was about one-third of what it is with our current format. Ah, the good old days...

deSade wrote:

I would rather see us move towards the European system of having only one category at a race. This would make it much easier on promoters, and could help re-introduce downtown and night racing by not imposing on merchants with a whole day of closed streets.

I don't see how this would work.

Would everybody be able to sign up and race in this 1 field? (400-500 riders in a crit :shock: )

Or would it be only Pro/Cat 1, in which case, how the heck do riders become Cat 1 if there are no races for lower cats? :?

BrentC wrote:

I swear I am not trying to pick on you but it seems you are requesting that whoever promotes a race have the ability to read minds because I don't recall anyone stepping up at the scheduling meeting and announcing their intention to volunteer their members' time to help promote and help find sponsors and additional funding for races for which few people attend and will lose money. Maybe I missed the announcement but if what you are saying is true, mea culpa, but then it should get more publicity and be made official instead of just announced on these forums.

On the other hand, historically Bob Leibold has asked for help in a lot of races for follow vehicles and he did not get a lot of volunteers except from parents in the junior races at the races I've been to recently. From what I've seen, most clubs have trouble getting people in their own club to show up to volunteer at their own events (until the last minute and with a lot of cajoling), and it usually the same core of dedicated people doing yeoman work for each respective club. With that sort of record, why should anyone have expected other clubs to step up?

colbrio wrote:I want to race with the best, not a watered down field who will give me a false sense of how good I reallly am.
Breath of fresh air...

I know the ideal of equality appeals to Americans in general, but when you have a premier series it should cater to the top categories. Just like other races don't have P/1s (like Brisbeen or velogirl's MP crit last year), Cat's Hill doesn't need to have races for the 3/4/5s. Equality doesn't mean you have to have every category at every race. It doesn't mean you call a series competition, BAR/BAT for example, when it favors field sprinters who only go to short flat races. And it certainly doesn't mean you have "category" championships. Other counties get this, and don't cheapen their races or championships by calling them what they clearly are not in a misguided effort to be "inclusive", while in reality being as phony as plastic veneer "wood grain".

I would rather see us move towards the European system of having only one category at a race. This would make it much easier on promoters, and could help re-introduce downtown and night racing by not imposing on merchants with a whole day of closed streets. Anyone who has raced much in Europe can tell you that our style of having every category is not sustainable and is not promoting the sport like it could and should. We can start by not whining and calling promoters names when they don't have races for every single category regardless of the logistics.

My advice to those who can't see this: 1) put on a race for your category on the same day, and 2) race in Europe for a year or two and see how they do it.

Many people have asked why the women don't step forward and support the event if they want it.

My question is when had anyone asked the local womens clubs to step forward and help because they were losing their shorts, before canceling the event??

Sabine and Lori Lee both head up some of the largest womens club/teams in the state and seem surprised with this announcement. They both have dozens of available volunteers who if asked might be free.
This is what causes me to question the intentions of the promoter.

I really don't think any of the ladies emailing or posting intended to make the promoter look bad, only call him on the information that is being claimed as justification for dropping it. If this happened to the mens field I am sure you would have seen many more angry emails than the ones posted to this board.

Maybe next year the promoter can work with the local clubs and bring something back for the ladies instead of calling quits on it.

I live 130 miles from the track. It's been that way for 20 years. Who lives too far from the track?

WHO CARES!
There, I said it! I'm a 4, OH GOD, A CAT 4! who can be upgraded or probably should upgrade or whatever. Used to be a 3. 45+ is my favorite category to race in, and I actually won one last year, and did pretty good in a couple others. I don't care what cats or age groups are offered, there seems to be plenty of races to do. I like all of them. The amount of squeeling and anamosity in this column is amazing! Jess offers an OPINION and everybody jumps him, this is very funny! He is actually a nice guy, and like me, he lives a little far from the track, or he'd be whupping your ass there too, his new trainer has had quite an affect on him, Warren you'd better watch it this year! And while I'm on the subject, if anybody doesn't like getting beat week after week by these "Ubers" then show up to a race sometime a little early, find me, I have VOS in giant letters everywhere on my kit, and my team and I will work with you and maybe we can have some F U N. Do any of you remember FUN?

OK for a little perspective I looked through the 2006 results on the S. Cal web site and the Texas web site. The SCNCA in Southern Cal is the second largest local Assoc in terms of licensed road riders behind NCNCA. From the 2006 results it looks like

Cat 4 women had
32 races where Cat 4s were placed separately and 2 open women's races for a total of 32 racing opportunities. There were 10 CBR races ( non USCF events) that also had Cat 4 women races so make that 42 racing opportunities so 34 fewer racing opportunities than the Cat 4 women had here in Nor Cal.

Texas is the 4th largest local association. From their Texas cup results it looks like Cat 4 women had a total of 32 racing opportunities. Not all race sin Texas are in the T cup but most of the races are. I would guess that including non texas cup races Cat 4 women probably had less than 40 racing opportunities so at least 36 less racing opportunities than in Nor Cal/NV

BrentC wrote:I remember tiny Cat 5 mens fields in the past and I don't recall anyone ever cutting that field due to low turnout. Cats hill was the place people went to get their points as a 5 because you could easily leave with a top 10 due to a small field.

The situation is now different. ( You also don't need to earn any points to upgrade as a 5. ) Now the cat 5's are getting cut out because the field limitation size and economics - any combined field that cat 5's are eligible for will have a max size of 75 and a cat 5 only max field is smaller still. The reason this matters is that when one has the choice between a field size of 100 and 50 or 75 and any of the three sizes will fill, and one does not have the ability to subsidize the race, one would choose the 100 all things being equal and ignoring other factors such as ability of the course to support a field size of 100, etc.

Elis wrote:...but there's no guarantee that a cat 4 woman will upgrade in those 3 races, or in 10, or even after a full season of racing.

So what? They stay a cat 4 and still have 75 chances to race last year.

There is a "get out of jail free" card for Cat 4 women. A cat 4 woman can upgrade based on experience. Any Cat 4 woman can upgrade after she has done 25 mass start races with a Min field size of 10 riders as long as she has placed in the top 10 at least ten times. This means that in a race with 10 riders all a Cat 4 woman has to do is finish to get credit for one of her 25 races and credit for one of her top 10 placings. Yes this is 15 more races than a Cat 5 man has to do. Then again Cat 4 for women isn't the same as Cat 5 for a man. for example a Cat 4 woman can win prizes of a monetary value in a Cat 4 women's only race while a Cat 5 man can't win such prizes in a Cat 5 only race.

Any woman who is reasonably strong should be able to upgrade in a single year either by upgrade points of via experience if she races a Min of 25 times.

Of the 615 licensed women at the end of last year

24% were Cat 3
12% were Cat 2
6.2% were Cat 1

of the 3465 licensed men at the end of last year

20% were Cat 3
10.5% were Cat 2
3.3% were Cat 1

Quote:A very good woman Cat 4 can earn an upgrade in as few as 3 races. Winning 3 races ( with as few as 10 riders in each race) will get a Cat 4 woman 21 upgrade points and a pass to the Cat 3 level.

Yep, but there's no guarantee that a cat 4 woman will upgrade in those 3 races, or in 10, or even after a full season of racing. That's the difference. If a cat 5 guy is bothered by a lack of cat 5 racing opportunities he can go out & do his ten races and be done with it. Not so for the cat 4 women. This is not to say that I don't appreciate the races that are there for women (especially the separate category races), or the fact that the upgrade-eligible races are similar between cat 5 men and cat 4 women, I'm just saying that there is no get out of jail free card for cat 4 women. And I do remember the proposal to add a cat 5 category for women, and I understand that the NCNCA is one of the few areas with enough women racers to make it a legitimate category.

That doesn't mean that I agree they're the same thing.

ststein wrote:From a strictly economic point of view, the promoter should eliminate the juniors. They pay less to register and never fill the fields. Yet we accept it as gospel that the Pro/Mstr/Elites fund the Juniors to grow the sport.

You mean "financial", not economic. An economic point of view would mean that you'd factor in how the community values the field (as well as any other considerations) and adjust the price accordingly...which, I assume, is precisely what happens.

Let's see the Min field size for a Cat 4 woman to earn upgrade points is 10 riders. A woman can earn upgrade points by placing in the top 6 in a race with as few as 10 riders. A very good woman Cat 4 can earn an upgrade in as few as 3 races. Winning 3 races ( with as few as 10 riders in each race) will get a Cat 4 woman 21 upgrade points and a pass to the Cat 3 level.

For Cat 5 men they have to do 10 races ( placing in those races doesn't speed up their upgrade) and again the Min field size is 10 riders. Also the races for Cat 5 men have to meet Min distance requirements just like the races for Cat 4 women so not just any races for Cat 5 men will count for upgrading.

Quote:I lied.~

Cat 5 men need a better lobby then. Maybe they can hire Elis?

I have a feeling they wouldn't want to pay my rates. Dare I even bring up the fact that it's not really accurate to compare the cat 5 men and cat 4 women's categories, since the upgrade requirements are so different? Those cat 5 men need to enter ten races before they are eligible to race pretty much any race they want. The cat 4 women have to earn their 20 upgrade points in races that meet the minimum standards before they can move out of the cat 4 ranks. A whole other can of worms...

The Jesster wrote:I have to say as a promoter that Warren's suggestion makes sense. Oh God - Did I just say that?

No worries. I understand that you meant that my suggestion made sense, not that I made sense.

Thanks for the numbers Casey. Reality check.

We haven't mentioned the 20 or so times a woman 4 could have raced on the track last year, along with several women-only clinics held during the season. And even though the women often race with the men it's within a category based on similar ability, and the women I've seen handle the situation just fine. Mary Maroon is on the Velodrome association's BOD.

casey wrote:
If you are a beginning racer who would like to ride in the Classic Nevada City Criterium you are out of luck, unless you are a women in which case you can enter as a Cat 4 ( yes it is an open women's race but no Cat 5 men can ride in Nevada City).

If you are a beginning racer and you would like to ride in the MERCO Crit or RR then again you need to be a woman since no cat 5 men of any age can enter those two races.

If you are a beginning racer and you would like to do the historic Berkeley Hills road race then once again you need to be a woman since no Cat 5 men of any age got to do Berkeley Hills last year.

Carrera de San Rafael? If you were a 35+ Cat 5 you got to do that race but any age women 4 could do that race.
Sausalito Crit last year. Again for a man you had to be at least 35 in order to do that race as a Cat 5 while and age Cat 4 women could ride. Same with the Lafayette Crit. last year.

Last year there were 51 Cat 5 only races, 18 Cat 4/5 races, and 2 Cat 3/4/5 races for men under 35. This was a total of 71 racing opportunities for Cat 5 men under 35.

Last year there were 41 Cat 4 only women's races, 22 Cat 3/4 women's races ( and in some of those the Cat 4s and 3s were placed separately) and 13 open women races ( again some of these races placed Cat 4 women separately). This was a total of 76 racing opportunities for Cat 4 women under the age of 35.

I lied.~

Cat 5 men need a better lobby then. Maybe they can hire Elis?

OOOOhhhh, I'm going back to back. I'm out-Jesstering myself now!

I have to say as a promoter (and an "offending" promoter at that), that Warren's suggestion makes sense.

Oh God - Did I just say that?

The womens' teams have sponsors. Sponsors love more publicity. If the Velo Girls come to me before the next race I promote and say "If you make room for a W3/4 race, we'll promise that Tri-Flow will be an event sponsor, and we'll commit to 10 pre-reg spots," I'd likely say Go VGirls Go!!

And everyone would be happy. And even Warren and I would agree.

La la la la la la la .......

sabine wrote:
If you are a beginner male rider with aspirations of racing the fabulous Cat's Hill crit, you may just jump into the one of the two categories open to you.

If you are a beginning racer who would like to ride in the Classic Nevada City Criterium you are out of luck, unless you are a women in which case you can enter as a Cat 4 ( yes it is an open women's race but no Cat 5 men can ride in Nevada City). Based on last year's schedule

If you are a beginning racer and you would like to ride in the MERCO Crit or RR then again you need to be a woman since no cat 5 men of any age can enter those two races.

If you are a beginning racer and you would like to do the historic Berkeley Hills road race then once again you need to be a woman since no Cat 5 men of any age got to do Berkeley Hills last year.

Carrera de San Rafael? If you were a 35+ Cat 5 you got to do that race but any age women 4 could do that race.
Sausalito Crit last year. Again for a man you had to be at least 35 in order to do that race as a Cat 5 while and age Cat 4 women could ride. Same with the Lafayette Crit. last year.

Last year there were 51 Cat 5 only races, 18 Cat 4/5 races, and 2 Cat 3/4/5 races for men under 35. This was a total of 71 racing opportunities for Cat 5 men under 35.

Last year there were 41 Cat 4 only women's races, 22 Cat 3/4 women's races ( and in some of those the Cat 4s and 3s were placed separately) and 13 open women races ( again some of these races placed Cat 4 women separately). This was a total of 76 racing opportunities for Cat 4 women under the age of 35.

The Jesster wrote:
I fell on my sword for this gaffe, Sabine. I really am sorry for what happened with the W4's, and I've promised to make it up to them next year if I'm still the Promoter. The W4's who competed were really game and deserved better than being pulled. They were also exhausted from trying to keep that incredible pace that Colavita set. I was SOOOO proud of them. One of the four winning W4's who got pulled was an ERT racer, our own power goddess Leslie Creed.

We made choices, not just based on money. But admittedly income was a factor for our new team. The past history of the participation of women at CP was not plentiful. And once we'd made a commitment to be the first event of the junior points series, where we'd expected to have a historically moderate turnout, we didn't have time left in the day to add a field. Remember, February and early March races are working with shorter daylight. If Cherry Pie was run in July we'd have no problems adding and expanding fields.

Give me a holler next year if you want to expand offerings for the women's categories. We will help as best we can.

We wanna win some pies!

And I think I used to race with Leslie way back in the day on the mtb circuit!

Sabine, who can't help herself and who really needs to stop clicking on this forum for chrissakes....

sabine wrote:As for Cherry Pie, the women 4 were combined with the women 1/2/3. Not too many beginner women are interested in racing alongside national champions. As it was, those Cat 4 women who were brave enough to race alongside the entire Colavita racing team, were rewarded by being pulled within 10-20 minutes (even after being told at registration that they would not)

I fell on my sword for this gaffe, Sabine. I really am sorry for what happened with the W4's, and I've promised to make it up to them next year if I'm still the Promoter. The W4's who competed were really game and deserved better than being pulled. They were also exhausted from trying to keep that incredible pace that Colavita set. I was SOOOO proud of them. One of the four winning W4's who got pulled was an ERT racer, our own power goddess Leslie Creed.

We made choices, not just based on money. But admittedly income was a factor for our new team. The past history of the participation of women at CP was not plentiful. And once we'd made a commitment to be the first event of the junior points series, where we'd expected to have a historically moderate turnout, we didn't have time left in the day to add a field. Remember, February and early March races are working with shorter daylight. If Cherry Pie was run in July we'd have no problems adding and expanding fields.

The good news: The Eagle Racing Team is also presenting the Benicia Town Race on July 8. We may actually get a chance to make you love us (me) again. AND we're going to be partying with you tomorrow in force with our kids and lovers and pets at Menlo Park.

sabine wrote:Am I Jesstering this thread?

And I won't get mad at you, Sabine, for again being made an adjective. It's a charming one, and far more accurate actually than the others I've been persistently called in this thread.

JV wrote:While there were close to 40 in the 3/4 field less than 15 were cat 4 and again cat 3 women still have the opportunity to race so it's only the cat 4 women that have been impacted, that is why I singled out their participation numbers. How is it unfair to base attendance expectations on past year numbers...what else should be used? Why would you ask a promoter to assume that this year will be so different...so many more cat 4 women will show up than ever before even though there has been a consistently low turnout? Cat 3 women can still race, will it be easy? No. But that does not mean it can't be done. Were all of the local women's team consulted? No they weren't, and clearly that's something to consider in the future, but that does not change the fact that based on the number of participants this race has not historically been a big draw for entry level women. So why is it so unreasonable to try something different for one year? Yes I understand that it gave more opportunities to some men while it took away from some women and that this imbalance is unacceptable to some people, point taken.

In terms of what message is sent to women...I would like to send a very clear message to every woman and girl on the sidelines...LGBRC will always support women's racing at all levels through its' various events. I hope you watch the women 1/2/3 at Cat's Hill and walk away inspired to race just as I did years ago after watching it with my daughter. I can't guarantee your participation as a cat 4 woman at Cat's Hill, but if your goal is to race it, then LGBRC will help you train hard, encourage you to race alot at great entry level venues such as Menlo Park, Ronde van Brisbeen, Coyote Creek, Timpani to name a few, and attend the Early Bird series where we mentor to build your skills and fitness so you can reach your racing goals.

If you are a beginner male rider with aspirations of racing the fabulous Cat's Hill crit, you may just jump into the one of the two categories open to you.

If you are a female, you have to work and train hard and get mentored and do all kinds of other racing and maybe race for 2-3 years to get your upgrade and then, and then if you are strong enough, dedicated enough and talented enough to race alongside Olympic and National Champions, you can race it.

cool

~~
I have nothing but respect for all teams that promote a race and put all of that energy into something for our sport. In no way do I want to take away from that. Promoting is tough, often thankless work. Tough choices must be made and someone is always upset by them. A fact I am all too intimate with.

Thankfully there are rewards that make all of the work worth it!

Now that I've reached full jesster status and totally hijacked Metcalfe's thread...I'll leave you to your donuts.