Since we can't offer a women's cat 5 race how about two women's cat 4 races? The promoter can call one Cat 4-Experienced, and the other Cat 4-Newbie, or whatever. Riders can self-select their apppropiate race.

Or, have a Cat 4 race, and immediately after that, a Cat 3/4 race. Which race would the new Cat 4's choose?

-Warren

KT wrote: So, long story short, if you are going to put an olive oil on your chamois (or anywhere else on your bod) Bariani would definately be the right choice. (Maybe with a little wine from Jewel?)

Awesome! That's just the sort of response I was looking for!

Just as a point of interest, I am not sure about the benefits of oil in the chamois; however, I can share something interesting about Bariani olive oil.

Bariani is made in the old Italian cold press style keeping the oil at low temperatures throughout processing. For some unknown reason, the Bariani oil is much higher in Vitamin B complexes that other virgin olive oil. There are currently full blown scientific studies underway at world reknown Universities as to the reason for this (no kidding!). So, long story short, if you are going to put an olive oil on your chamois (or anywhere else on your bod) Bariani would definately be the right choice. (Maybe with a little wine from Jewel?)

Thanks again to Enrico and the entire Bariani clan for allowing us to use their new plant as a staging area. Poppa Bariani tells me next year will be more of the Italian racing style and even better than this year.

Tripp wrote: And give us credit for running two women's races on Saturday!

That (giving credit) was the original intent of starting this thread- and of course to get feedback on the olive oil chamois thing :shock: .

I'm sorta surprised it turned into such a debate...

again, great job this weekend SGW. We all had a really groovy time!

Thank you for your response, Sabine. I know we both recognize the economic realities of promoting bicycle races. I think that the change to the Land Park course is an example of how we have changed our races to increase the quality and safety of the racing at the expense of our pocketbook. 2 years ago on a sunny day we had around 650 riders at Land Park. This year on a sunny day we had only 425. Still good numbers, but I think there are folks who are staying away now because they know their fitness isn't up to the task of the new course.

And give us credit for running two women's races on Saturday!

I guess the bottom line is that it isn't possible to make everyone happy. We've got folks who want us to run 2 junior fields at Land Park, and I'm sure there are folks who would like to see junior fields at Zamora.

I'm going to save this thread to my hard drive to make sure I can access it next year.

Tripp

I realize that there aren't more people on the course with two groups of women instead of one, and you all realize that, but for whatever reason, the County conditioned the permit on not having more than 3 groups in one wave. Of course, the middle wave had a potential max. of 300 riders and the third wave had a potential of only 200, so it makes no sense, but there it is.

A combined Pro/1/2/3 field is an interesting idea. If I were a 3, I wouldn't want to race with Pros, but if we got the same type of turnout then it would make for a good sized field.

Putting the issue of next year aside, I'd like to thank everyone who came out and raced this weekend. The support was tremendous, and we felt like the gamble of doing a road race was worth it. We had a good time, and I hope everyone else did also. I'm not sure of the exact reasons, but it seems to me from both this past weekend and my own racing at Snelling and McLane this spring that the overall quality of racing is rising. To put on a crit with 430 riders and not have a single crash is remarkable. It speaks to not only the changes we made to the course, but also to the skill of everyone who raced at Land Park.

So again, thank you to everyone who came out to race our events, apologies to anyone I may have been rude to (mostly perhaps in the final hours of Sunday, when the toll of the weekend and the cold I was fighting off began to wear on me), and I hope to see everyone again next year.

Finally, I AM working on getting results posted as quickly as possible. I spend 2.5 hours last night, which means that I have results from 4 races at Land Park tabulated. I do have a job, however, so I'm limited to a couple of hours in the evening. I hope to have Land Park done by Thursday and posted on Friday, and I hope to have Zamora done by early next week.

Tripp Goldsberry
SGW President

Thank you Tripp

That kind of considerate response is exactly why we offer opinions here. Sometimes its just nice to know that rider's opinions are being heard and valued.

There is no easy answer to your question.

But, if you really can only offer one category then yes, my humble opinion would be to offer the Women 3/4.

Of course, my preferred choice would be to find room in the schedule for more. As a promotor, I understand the economic realities all too well. But as the founder of a women's team, it just kills me to see so many categories offered for men and only one for women.

If we all promoted races based on economics and numbers alone we would have 7 categories for Cat 5 men. But of course we don't do that as we try to accomodate other types of racing. I guess each promotor just needs to pick what is important to them (women, juniors, family, pros, fund raising, etc) for that event and make the best choices possible and we racers keep letting our opinions on it all fly.

And then we do it all again the next weekend.

Again, thank you for a fine weekend of racing. Our team had a great (I can say that now that the pain is over) time racing the events and stealing the wine prizes from the Safeway team.

Sabine

Note that Velo Promo didn't run the Visalia races. Velo Promo was only helping out with things like registration and possibly providing the stage truck.

Tripp wrote:I've read this threat with quite a bit of interest, and I thought I'd let you know what our (SGW's) thinking was on the fields at Zamora. First, please keep in mind that our race weekend is our funding source for the year. We put on a 'cross race in the fall which sometimes makes a few hundred dollars and sometimes loses a few hundred. So this is our organizations source of funding for the year, and because we put on our races in March, when we might get rain and thus poor turnout, good years like this year might get us through a couple of lean years. Last year we pretty much broke even on our race weekend, providing us no income with which to pay our members race fees, send people to Nationals, etc.

With that in mind, the reason that we did a Masters 35+ 4 field and a Masters 35+ 5 field is that there are huge numbers of 35+ 4/5s in the district. With the rule that a field that includes 5s is limited to 75, we could do a 4/5 field and limit our self to 75 riders from that pool, do just a 35+ 4 race and leave Masters 5s to get one of the 50 spots in the Sr. 5 field, or do both and give ourselves 150 spots for Masters 35+ 4/5s. We sold out both Cat. 5 fields and had big waiting lists for both fields.

In past years, we did a separate Women's 4 field on our Sunday event, just like we do at Land Park on Saturday. In those years, we got turnouts of around 10 Women 4s. So with that history in mind, we haven't made room for a separate Womens 4 field on Sunday. This year we had a great turnout on Sunday, although a separate womens 1/2 race would have only had about 12 people in it (I think we had about 34 4s, about 12 3s, and about 12 1/2s). So adding a separate field in order for a dozen racers to have their own field isn't very attractive from the promoter's point of view.

As far as having a 4th field on the course during a given wave, it is my understanding that our permit from Yolo County limited us to 3 fields in any given wave. The County understood that the fields would break up into a lot of groups, but I think they wanted to limit the total number of riders on the course at any given time. Fields were spaced out like they were because we wanted to avoid fields catching each other. That was a big concern because of the traffic on the east/west road at the north end of the course (County Road 13/14). In retrospect, we probably should have had the 3s go before the 4s, but we've all seen a lot of races where the 4 field goes out like it is a crit while the 3s ride a comfortable pace for the first 15 miles or so, and then ramp it up.

As far as co-ordinating with the Visalia event, I don't think that happend. I don't think the Visalia folks were at the scheduling meeting, except that of course Bob was at the meeting and he ran the event. I didn't know that Bob was running that event at the time of the meeting, so we didn't talk then. I also think the significant distance between our races and Visalia means that the need to co-ordinate fields isn't as great as it is with some of the upcoming weekend conflicts, which in some case are only 45 miles apart. Also, what would people rather have? If we had juggled things with Visalia, would women 1/2s been happier with their own crit field at Visalia on Sunday and no opportunity to race at Zamora because we put on a field for 3/4s only (or vice versa, i.e., we took the 1/2s and Visalia took the 3/4s)? Or are they happier with an open field at Zamora that gives them the opportunity to race that event? I'm not posing this as a rhetorical question. I'm asking for input on this issue.

In any event, doing the road race was a bit of an experiment for us. We haven't promoted a road race in about 11 years. For next year we will look at the numbers and we may change the fields a bit. We only got something like 21 Pro/1/2s on Sunday, so we need to look at that. We also need to look at whether we do two races for women, or maybe an open Masters race for women, or maybe we keep things the same. I think this debate highlights the fact that there are a lot of competing considerations, and finding the right balance is a tough thing that I know SGW wrestles with each year.

With that said, we welcome all the feedback we can get. Since we have never promoted the Zamora event before, we took our best guess at how it would go, and I think we got a lot more right than we did wrong. But without a history to draw upon, we were just guessing (we didn't think we would get 60 women at Zamora, for one thing). So tell us what we got wrong. We will listen.

Tripp Goldsberry
SGW President

As has been said by a number of folks in this forum and by EVERYONE at the races over the weekend ~ great job on the promoting. It was a smashing success.

I think you guys made the best decisions with the data you had. Well done. One option in the future might be to combine the men in a p1/2/3 - but, that's a tough call to make. As for the women, I think a p1/2/3 split with a 4 field would have been acceptable on the day, but who knew you'd get 60 women attending? And again, I really have no other input that I could be qualified to throw out about the women's racing. I guess I am ... afterall, a guy ... and so my thoughts must be taken as such.

But, (in my opinion) you guys made the right calls on all accounts and promoted a safe, enjoyable (and i hope profitable!) race weekend. It was great seeing so many cat 4 women at the crit AND a large women's p1/2/3 field later in the day.

And lastly, it was so cool of you guys to have a FREE juniors race at the crit. Maybe we should consider having shorter (15 - 25 min) races for the younger juniors categories that are free. It wouldn't be as much of a time issue for the race day logistics and parents wouldn't be forced to shell out $20+ for a short event. Just an idea.

Again, thanks for the racing.
mhernandez

Wouldn't it work to not drop a category? In other words, if you sent the 3/4 Women off 5 minutes behind the P1/2 gals, there would not be any more people on the course- just an additional 5 minutes of time. Since- and this is the big assumption- the P1/2 women are not likely to be caught by the 3/4s? (I don't think the master 5's lapped the women's field).

Just reverse the above and use the Senlling arguement used for the 35+ 1/2/3s and it works fine without dropping any field.
The P1/2 women run behind the 3/4 women by 10 minutes, catch and pass on the first lap then all should be fine.

I would rather have a field neutralized for a couple of minutes then through Women in their first or second year of racing in with women who can beat me in TT. (not that beating me in a TT is very difficult).

Ron

I don't think it's your fault that the P12 men and women's fields were small. San Dimas used to be a NRC race and it is very close to the upcoming Redlands NRC race so it's natural that a lot of teams might prefer to do San Dimas instead of Bay Area events, lots of local elite folks were at San Dimas.

I've read this threat with quite a bit of interest, and I thought I'd let you know what our (SGW's) thinking was on the fields at Zamora. First, please keep in mind that our race weekend is our funding source for the year. We put on a 'cross race in the fall which sometimes makes a few hundred dollars and sometimes loses a few hundred. So this is our organizations source of funding for the year, and because we put on our races in March, when we might get rain and thus poor turnout, good years like this year might get us through a couple of lean years. Last year we pretty much broke even on our race weekend, providing us no income with which to pay our members race fees, send people to Nationals, etc.

With that in mind, the reason that we did a Masters 35+ 4 field and a Masters 35+ 5 field is that there are huge numbers of 35+ 4/5s in the district. With the rule that a field that includes 5s is limited to 75, we could do a 4/5 field and limit our self to 75 riders from that pool, do just a 35+ 4 race and leave Masters 5s to get one of the 50 spots in the Sr. 5 field, or do both and give ourselves 150 spots for Masters 35+ 4/5s. We sold out both Cat. 5 fields and had big waiting lists for both fields.

In past years, we did a separate Women's 4 field on our Sunday event, just like we do at Land Park on Saturday. In those years, we got turnouts of around 10 Women 4s. So with that history in mind, we haven't made room for a separate Womens 4 field on Sunday. This year we had a great turnout on Sunday, although a separate womens 1/2 race would have only had about 12 people in it (I think we had about 34 4s, about 12 3s, and about 12 1/2s). So adding a separate field in order for a dozen racers to have their own field isn't very attractive from the promoter's point of view.

As far as having a 4th field on the course during a given wave, it is my understanding that our permit from Yolo County limited us to 3 fields in any given wave. The County understood that the fields would break up into a lot of groups, but I think they wanted to limit the total number of riders on the course at any given time. Fields were spaced out like they were because we wanted to avoid fields catching each other. That was a big concern because of the traffic on the east/west road at the north end of the course (County Road 13/14). In retrospect, we probably should have had the 3s go before the 4s, but we've all seen a lot of races where the 4 field goes out like it is a crit while the 3s ride a comfortable pace for the first 15 miles or so, and then ramp it up.

As far as co-ordinating with the Visalia event, I don't think that happend. I don't think the Visalia folks were at the scheduling meeting, except that of course Bob was at the meeting and he ran the event. I didn't know that Bob was running that event at the time of the meeting, so we didn't talk then. I also think the significant distance between our races and Visalia means that the need to co-ordinate fields isn't as great as it is with some of the upcoming weekend conflicts, which in some case are only 45 miles apart. Also, what would people rather have? If we had juggled things with Visalia, would women 1/2s been happier with their own crit field at Visalia on Sunday and no opportunity to race at Zamora because we put on a field for 3/4s only (or vice versa, i.e., we took the 1/2s and Visalia took the 3/4s)? Or are they happier with an open field at Zamora that gives them the opportunity to race that event? I'm not posing this as a rhetorical question. I'm asking for input on this issue.

In any event, doing the road race was a bit of an experiment for us. We haven't promoted a road race in about 11 years. For next year we will look at the numbers and we may change the fields a bit. We only got something like 21 Pro/1/2s on Sunday, so we need to look at that. We also need to look at whether we do two races for women, or maybe an open Masters race for women, or maybe we keep things the same. I think this debate highlights the fact that there are a lot of competing considerations, and finding the right balance is a tough thing that I know SGW wrestles with each year.

With that said, we welcome all the feedback we can get. Since we have never promoted the Zamora event before, we took our best guess at how it would go, and I think we got a lot more right than we did wrong. But without a history to draw upon, we were just guessing (we didn't think we would get 60 women at Zamora, for one thing). So tell us what we got wrong. We will listen.

Tripp Goldsberry
SGW President

If you need the number, I was in the first chase group (combination of women, cat 2, 3, 4) with about 12 women at the Zamora RR. We worked effectively by racing a double,rotating pace line. My average was 19.7 mph. I am not sure how far behind we were from the front pack but we had our eyes on them the entire race yet never caught the the pack. I am a cat 4 racer and would say our pace was an avarage cat four (women) pace.

casey wrote:
Again people should realize that if you want to eliminate open women's races altogether there will be some races where the promoter will have to choose between only having a 1/2/3 race or a 4 ( or possibly 3/4) race and that sometimes not having a race for your preferred group is the price to pay for not having any open women's races.

As is the case this year in Burlingame. Historically Pen Velo offered an open women's race. Last year, they offered both a W3/4 and a W1/2/3 (with fields of about 50 women in each race). This year, they're only offering a W1/2/3. Bummer, but my understanding is that because of the large masters' membership of the club, this year they decided to do a masters' race instead of the W3/4. But the reality is that in a race day that's limited in duration (especially in the case of a downtown crit), a promoter can't offer races for every single field.

casey wrote:If Cat 1/2 Pro women don;t like riding with the Cat 4s in an open event then the 1/2/pro women also have the option of doing the 1/2/Pro or the Cat 3 men's races.

ugh.

That's really a viable solution? Okey-dokey.

- - -

I think I've made all the points that I can call myself qualified to make on this point. I hope any current or future promoters who might have glanced at this thread take any of my thoughts as all that they are ... suggestions from a hack-racer type.

I also hope they will accept my congrats on doing such hard work and helping our sport grow and flourish. Thanks for the racing and I'll do my best to attend and get more folks attending all the events that I can.

later then,
mhernandez

Asking women to remove their entry fees from women's races in order to support women's races is a bit of a catch-22, isn't it?

It seems to me that if we stop entering the races that are offered to us this will contribute to more of our races being cut because there aren't enough participants in them. That in turn will develop more negative feelings when we ask for appropriate-category races and more complaints that women aren't showing up to races, rather than being a means of using our entry fees to create a positive change. [/list]

you both (mhernandez & casey) make some good points. obviously, a promoter can't run an event where every category races alone- you'd be looking at doing races well into the hours of darkness.

here is a different spin on this dialogue, if anyone is interested...

i have quite a few female friends, clients, and acquaintences who love cycling. very few of them race, and instead turn to triathlons or other types of events to fulfill the competitive urge. i'm constantly trying to convince them to get out and try a bike race or two. even though some of these women are extremely fit and could do reasonably well, they are aprehensive about racing. why? the overwhelming response is simply, "it's too scary" (especially the crits). while our sport has an element of danger (crashes do happen- and usually because someone is not paying attention), i think this is often overemphasized and the thrill of riding your bike fast is underemphasized. As someone who works with athletes on a regular basis (and lots of female athletes), i agree with mike that there is a tremendous potential to get more women involved in the sport (which i think we can all agree would be a good thing). In my mind that means promoting events that cyclists new to racing can enter without feeling overly intimidated. maybe the promotion of clinics that culminate in a race (i think the velo girls do something like this). again, i think a lot more women would race if it wasn't so "scary".

although, i'm just one of those -what does mhernandez call us? geezers. any gals want to comment on this?

as far as the jr's go- i'm not sure what the ratio is, but i'm pretty sure there aren't a whole lot of jr. girls out there competing. in my mind jr. girls who race grow up to be women who race (assuming they have a good experience as jr.'s.

just a thought...

One thing I just realized about what bothers me with the tone of the discussion re open women's races. No one can force a woman to ride in an open women's event. If women don't like open women's events then they should exert some of their financial impact and avoid the open women's races. If Cat 1/2 Pro women don;t like riding with the Cat 4s in an open event then the 1/2/pro women also have the option of doing the 1/2/Pro or the Cat 3 men's races.

Likewise rider who want more separate category races should make the extra effort to support those events that offer separate categories for women. Promoters respond to economic realities just like any other business. If they are losing money by offering only an open race while those races that offer separate races for women are making money then the promoters have more incentive to change their offerings.

Again people should realize that if you want to eliminate open women's races altogether there will be some races where the promoter will have to choose between only having a 1/2/3 race or a 4 ( or possibly 3/4) race and that sometimes not having a race for your preferred group is the price to pay for not having any open women's races.

mhernandez wrote:

... well, maybe i'm going to bang my head against the wall on this one, Casey.

But, I have never been to a non-age grouped pro1/2/3/4/5 men's race. And I've raced in a lot of different regions around the country. And, as I have been hearing over and over again, the age-grouped riders don't much like lining up in all-categories, as well.

So, yes ~ perhaps the ideal situation is to have a more races split up by categories when events fall on the same day. It seems to me, you are the person in the best position to know when that is going to happen, yes?

In the case of this past weekend the fact that Land Park/Zamora was at the same time as Visalia was known at the time of the race scheduling meeting back in Nov. At the race scheduling meeting we encouraged promoters having races on the same day to work together to share fields. This was done for all situations where we had two or more races per day. I pointed out several time there there are plenty of riders to support two races, especially in the lower categories if promoters would either work together to share categories or if promoters would do non standard events ( like a 45+ 4/5 event).

mhernandez wrote:
But, in the instant case of Zamora - i do not believe that it would have been unsafe or hindered racers by having a pro1/2/3 women's field start 2 or 3 minutes ahead of a category 4/5 women's field (again, i really, really believe we need the return of the cat 5 for women).

While I agree that Cat 5 for women is something we need it isn't going to happen until the rest of the USCF Board of Directors, other than Tom Simonson, are convinced of this need. Tom was the only member of the USCF Board who voted in favor of the proposal to Add Cat 5 for women ( which I helped write).

mhernandez wrote:
Especially with the race being 40 miles for the first group and 30 miles for the second, for example. I doubt they would have overlapped ... but, you can just never tell. The key to fields overtaking each other is GOOD MARSHALLING and communicating to racers the proper etiquette should it happen.

One of the good things that SGW did was make sure they had a motorcycle official with each group on the road. Adding a 4th group to one wave would have meant hiring another motor official and paying another $100 for the special insurance coverage needed for motorcycle officials. I'm just pointing out there would have been considerable expense in adding a 4th field in one wave in addition to the issues of overlapping groups and possibly having 1 or more group neutralized close to their finish.

mhernandez wrote:
A paragraph of text included in a race flyer would probably do a ton of good in educating riders on how to act when fields overtake each other. Does USCF have such a text generated? Would you generate such a short, concise bit of text if they don't? I'm sure there are a number of officials and/or riders who would be able to help draft up such a message to include in flyers for races that overtaking fields might occur.

Considering how few racers have even bothered to read the USCF rule book I doubt an extra paragraph in a race flyer would be read or paid attention to. USCF doesn't have such a paragraph since there is a USCF rule against having multi groups on a course if there is likely to be overlapping of groups. In many situations where over taking might take place officials will often give instructions on what to do if one group catches another. To many times these instructions are ignored. It only really works out to have one group pass another if you have motorcycle marshals to shut down the group being passed ( or mentors in the case of the Early Birds)

mhernandez wrote:
And so, here are the issues as I have seen them from my racing experiences and gleaned them from your comments:

1) women's all-category fields are not the ideal situation to draw new women's racers into our sport (and, i'm not really sure you [casey] are seeing the huge marketing potential of women's racing ... for our sport's financial viability, long-term growth and competitiveness in the world - this is an opinion formed by your consistent comments on the state and future of women's racing. I hope I'm wrong in my interpretation, so please correct me if i am. Or, perhaps I am wrong in my opinion that there is potential for growth in women's racing.).

Bottom line, we will NOT see women remain interested and become more passionate about and actually compete in road racing if a new rider has to line up with seasoned professionals and category 1 racers. And, that means fewer will continue to race and upgrade and fill the p1/2 ranks you cite as numbers.

I realize the potential benefits in growing the ranks of women racers. I am also a realist in that I know we don't have the ability to always have separate classes for women at all our events. As I have pointed out before last year there were only 7 open women races vs 43 times Cat 4 women had their own separate race and another 20 or so time there was a 3/4 women's race. At the end of last year women made up 14.9% of the NCNCA ridership vs women being 11.7% of total USCF riders. Last year we had 11.9% of all Cat 4 women racers in NCNCA territory vs NCNCA having only 9.8% of the total USCF membership. Sometime you can make more progress by focusing on the positives ( like the number of separate races for Cat 4 and 3 women we already have) instead of focusing on the negatives. Compared to 5 or 10 years ago there are a lot more women racing in general round here, there are a lot more Cat 4 only races and a lot more Cat 3 only races than in the past. Progress is being made but it is still going to be a while before all women's races have separate categories ( and not all races will be able to have multi categories for women so these races will most likely pick and choose which categories to offer to women just like they have to do for men. The women have it much better than juniors currently do, especially the 10-12 and 13-14 age groups which have very few separate age group events. IN some ways juniors are as important, if not more important, to the future growth of our sport than women. Again not all race are going to be able to offer separate age groups for all the juniors as well as multi categories for women and all the different men's groups.
mhernandez wrote:
AND, we do a serious dis-service to those more advanced women racers by asking them to race with new women's racers, too. I just don't think we would ever ask any of our local professional riders to line up at a race with brand-new cat 5 men. Yet, we find it acceptable to do so with the women. Ok, that's a decision we are making.

2) promotional logistics: yes, these are tough decisions and that is why offering constructive suggestions to assist promoters should be welcomed and encouraged. Let's recall how this thread began - loads of people were raving about how well run and how much fun this weekend's SGW races were. They were outstanding events run by real good, well-meaning, SUPER-dedicated folks.

But remember that part of the reason the road race was so good was because the promoter didn't try to crowd to many groups onto the course at once unlike what many other promoters do. Once you start to crowd 4 groups into one wave ten other groups who felt left out at the RR will start to say if you have 4 groups on that wave why can't you have 4 groups on another wave and give our group a separate race? Again this is why I point out that it is harder than just adding one more group for your selected category of racers.
mhernandez wrote:
We all respect that and honor it.

Now, having 2 competing events in our region is something that the folks who permit said events knew about more than the individual promoters of said events. Is there a process when permitting to encourage the splitting of categories per event? Would it have been acceptable to put these two promoters in touch with each other back when they initially applied for their permits and were granted them? Was it done? Should it be done?

As I said before most promoters knew at the race scheduling meeting back in Nov. that there was a second race on their race day. If the promoters were not at the race scheduling meeting then the promoters knew when the tentative schedule was sent out to promoters shortly after the scheduling meeting. There was plenty of opportunity for promoters to get together and work out sharing categories. In some cases promoters just don't want to play nice with others. For example it looks like this year we will have two local races that will offer a women's category on the same weekend as the Kern Co women's stage race. In the past the local promoters have opted not to have a women's category to help support the Kern CO race. This year promoters don't seem inclined to support Kern by not having a women's category. The bottom line is Kern will probably see smaller fields and I don't know what affect this might have on the future of the Kern CO event.
mhernandez wrote:
I don't know the answer to any of these questions. But, I am a racer who attends most of the events in our region. I stick around to watch and cheer for most of the events throughout each day's categories. I talk with a lot of promoters and officials and know that they all do this for the love of the sport and want the best solutions. So, let's keep improving. Because, in my opinion, we are improving.

Perhaps USCF can host a national conference on all of these questions? But, are they qualified?

Who would be?
mhernandez

casey wrote:Come on Mike it is done all the time in either open 35+ races or open 45+ races. Heck in other parts of the country it is even done in elite races. The reason why we don't have many open elite races here ( or as many open 35+ races here) is due to the larger rider populations in general.
Yes in an ideal situation where we would have 36 hours of daylight in a single day we would have time to run all the categories separately and this would help build women's racing faster. Cat 5 men who are over 35 and especially the ones who are over 45 go through having to race with 1/2 level riders all the time though. Some times promoters have to make hard choices. Is it better the run an open women's race or have no race for women? If it comes down to never having an open women's race then most likely a lot of promoters might start dropping the Cat 1/2 women since there are currently only 67 Cat 1/2 women in our area vs 236 Cat 4 women. I don't think the Cat 1/2 women would really enjoy that option to much.

In most cases it isn't just as simple as a race like Zamora simply adding another category for Cat 4 women. As I always mention there are time and course restrictions. In most cases what we need are second races on the same day helping cover those categories that the first race can't cover. In the case of Zamora this year maybe SGW shouldn't of have Cat 1/2 women since there was also Visalia and the San Dimas ( a NRC race) race going on the same day that helped spread out the already small number of 1/2 women. When races do happen on the same day maybe promoters need to work together so both events don't try to draw from an already small rider population.

... well, maybe i'm going to bang my head against the wall on this one, Casey.

But, I have never been to a non-age grouped pro1/2/3/4/5 men's race. And I've raced in a lot of different regions around the country. And, as I have been hearing over and over again, the age-grouped riders don't much like lining up in all-categories, as well.

So, yes ~ perhaps the ideal situation is to have a more races split up by categories when events fall on the same day. It seems to me, you are the person in the best position to know when that is going to happen, yes?

But, in the instant case of Zamora - i do not believe that it would have been unsafe or hindered racers by having a pro1/2/3 women's field start 2 or 3 minutes ahead of a category 4/5 women's field (again, i really, really believe we need the return of the cat 5 for women). Especially with the race being 40 miles for the first group and 30 miles for the second, for example. I doubt they would have overlapped ... but, you can just never tell. The key to fields overtaking each other is GOOD MARSHALLING and communicating to racers the proper etiquette should it happen.

A paragraph of text included in a race flyer would probably do a ton of good in educating riders on how to act when fields overtake each other. Does USCF have such a text generated? Would you generate such a short, concise bit of text if they don't? I'm sure there are a number of officials and/or riders who would be able to help draft up such a message to include in flyers for races that overtaking fields might occur.

And so, here are the issues as I have seen them from my racing experiences and gleaned them from your comments:

1) women's all-category fields are not the ideal situation to draw new women's racers into our sport (and, i'm not really sure you [casey] are seeing the huge marketing potential of women's racing ... for our sport's financial viability, long-term growth and competitiveness in the world - this is an opinion formed by your consistent comments on the state and future of women's racing. I hope I'm wrong in my interpretation, so please correct me if i am. Or, perhaps I am wrong in my opinion that there is potential for growth in women's racing.).

Bottom line, we will NOT see women remain interested and become more passionate about and actually compete in road racing if a new rider has to line up with seasoned professionals and category 1 racers. And, that means fewer will continue to race and upgrade and fill the p1/2 ranks you cite as numbers.

AND, we do a serious dis-service to those more advanced women racers by asking them to race with new women's racers, too. I just don't think we would ever ask any of our local professional riders to line up at a race with brand-new cat 5 men. Yet, we find it acceptable to do so with the women. Ok, that's a decision we are making.

2) promotional logistics: yes, these are tough decisions and that is why offering constructive suggestions to assist promoters should be welcomed and encouraged. Let's recall how this thread began - loads of people were raving about how well run and how much fun this weekend's SGW races were. They were outstanding events run by real good, well-meaning, SUPER-dedicated folks.

We all respect that and honor it.

Now, having 2 competing events in our region is something that the folks who permit said events knew about more than the individual promoters of said events. Is there a process when permitting to encourage the splitting of categories per event? Would it have been acceptable to put these two promoters in touch with each other back when they initially applied for their permits and were granted them? Was it done? Should it be done?

I don't know the answer to any of these questions. But, I am a racer who attends most of the events in our region. I stick around to watch and cheer for most of the events throughout each day's categories. I talk with a lot of promoters and officials and know that they all do this for the love of the sport and want the best solutions. So, let's keep improving. Because, in my opinion, we are improving.

Perhaps USCF can host a national conference on all of these questions? But, are they qualified?

Who would be?
mhernandez

Michael H rhetorically asks in regards to the Open Women's category:

"How about I ask this question one more time: Would you ever consider running a male category 5 cyclist in a category 1/2 race?

Would you, Casey?

No, of course not."

This is my point precisely with the 45+ issue. While some may make the fanciful argument that 45+ 4/5's "want to" race with the 1/2's, a more fair division is necessary to promote competition. Of course, with the womens' fields the issue is numbers to justify redistribution of fields. With the 45's no such issue exists. With the substitution of a 45+ 3/4 field for the open 45's, many of the 3's and 4's who otherwise ride in the crowded master 4/5 and Elite 3 fields will be drawn into the more balanced 45+ grouping. Crowding in the most populated field, the master 4/5's, will be alleved.

mhernandez wrote:Casey wrote:Quote:OK Mr. H here is your chance to play promoter ...

hmm... couple years of promoting weekly twilight events up in Reno might qualify as more than 'playing' promoter, don't it Casey?

but, maybe it don't. it's just non-USCF sanctioned hick-racing, after all. only 80 - 150 racers a night with a promotion/scoring/reg crew of 1-5. ... just playin'.

How about I ask this question one more time: Would you ever consider running a male category 5 cyclist in a category 1/2 race?

Would you, Casey?

mhernandez

Come on Mike it is done all the time in either open 35+ races or open 45+ races. Heck in other parts of the country it is even done in elite races. The reason why we don't have many open elite races here ( or as many open 35+ races here) is due to the larger rider populations in general.
Yes in an ideal situation where we would have 36 hours of daylight in a single day we would have time to run all the categories separately and this would help build women's racing faster. Cat 5 men who are over 35 and especially the ones who are over 45 go through having to race with 1/2 level riders all the time though. Some times promoters have to make hard choices. Is it better the run an open women's race or have no race for women? If it comes down to never having an open women's race then most likely a lot of promoters might start dropping the Cat 1/2 women since there are currently only 67 Cat 1/2 women in our area vs 236 Cat 4 women. I don't think the Cat 1/2 women would really enjoy that option to much.

In most cases it isn't just as simple as a race like Zamora simply adding another category for Cat 4 women. As I always mention there are time and course restrictions. In most cases what we need are second races on the same day helping cover those categories that the first race can't cover. In the case of Zamora this year maybe SGW shouldn't of have Cat 1/2 women since there was also Visalia and the San Dimas ( a NRC race) race going on the same day that helped spread out the already small number of 1/2 women. When races do happen on the same day maybe promoters need to work together so both events don't try to draw from an already small rider population.

MarkSasser wrote:The Visalia races didn't take that many bodies away from the racing this weekend. Honestly it was an embarrasment to the NCNCA that 20 somthing women and 38 men showed up for a crit with $2500 up for grabs in each race.

MSHey I just realized I didn't single out the women 3/4!!!!!

How about 15 cat 2 men in a 2's only crit. Guys begging for points and they dont show up. NICE.

MS

Sabine

That wasn't the intention, sorry.

All the races had a low turn out and thats sad.

I'm all for womens 3/4 races, that will get my wife pinning on numbers again and thats a good thing.

masters women 40+ cat 3 would be even better but I know when to stop, sometimes.

I think a race like the Kearn SR that was a bit further north would do very well.

The cat 4 challenge with womens fields would be worth bringing back also.

Just an idea.

Although there are growing numbers of women in the region, its still going to be tough to get good fields with 2 other competing events (In this case San Dimas and Landpark/Zamora)

But as I understand it, all fields showed low attendance at Visalia, so in this case it seems not quite right to single out the women's attendace as an indicator of anything in particular.

I think we had about 60 women at Zamora.

I'll play promoter and put in my .02

And yeah I know you didn't ask me.

With 4 elite mens races (P/1/2 - 3 - 4 - 5 )

And 4 Masters races (M35+123 - 45/55 - M35+ 4 - M35+ 5)

And 1 womens race (1/2/3/4)

I'd have to say ditch a masters race.

Now before you get in a huff, I know I'm a master bla bla bla.

But come on how many masters races are REALY needed.

Personally I would Add a womens 4 field, maybe a 3/4 and not have a M35+ 5's race.

My thinking is that a 35 Year old man is probly going to go ahead and do a E5 race compared to a new woman signing up for a OPEN womens race.

Now on the other side of the topic.........

The Visalia races didn't take that many bodies away from the racing this weekend. Honestly it was an embarrasment to the NCNCA that 20 somthing women and 38 men showed up for a crit with $2500 up for grabs in each race.

And just to toss this fact out, they had a womens 3/4 crit. Picked seperatly with $200 per catagory. 6 women showed up. 2 cat 4's.

I think womens 3/4 racing is only going to get better but the racers have to show up to keep the promoters willing to add the races.

just my observation.

MS

Casey wrote:Quote:OK Mr. H here is your chance to play promoter ...

hmm... couple years of promoting weekly twilight events up in Reno might qualify as more than 'playing' promoter, don't it Casey?

but, maybe it don't. it's just non-USCF sanctioned hick-racing, after all. only 80 - 150 racers a night with a promotion/scoring/reg crew of 1-5. ... just playin'.

How about I ask this question one more time: Would you ever consider running a male category 5 cyclist in a category 1/2 race?

Would you, Casey?

No, of course not. And yet, we ask the women to do it. I was at Zamora, Casey. I saw the big field of women line up and I saw the HUGE disparity in ability and SAFETY in that field. Come on, man. that's what i'm talkin' about. So, I'll ask again ~ would you line up category 5 men in a p1/2 race?

- - -

Now, with the Zamora course - you wanna get rid of a field? (and please, let's remember how awesome this weekend of racing was before we talk about making changes. this was an EXCELLENTLY promoted set of races)

umm...it seems as though we might have been able to combine the men p1/2 and elite 3's together. It was weird only seeing 20+ p1/2's suffering out there in the wind all morning. I'm sure that having the conflicting Visalia races brought down the numbers in that field, but I really don't know as I don't have access to start lists for both events. AND, you can never really know how many racers will show up ... aye, there's the rub, ain't it?

So, to answer your question - "no," i don't have a better design. I admit it. These are tough decisions. But, I am convinced that grouping newbie women racers with p/1 women racers is bad for our sport - all the time. It discourages new racers, it endangers existing racers - thus limiting the growth of our sport, the money drawn to sponsors, bike shops, and promoters. Can you argue the case otherwise, Casey?

mhernandez

If one changes the start gaps to two minutes the problem goes away in that scenario, not sure why they used the huge time gaps.

Doesn't this happen so much anyways now that the riders should know/be taught what to do if there's not a moto ref to help for each group, i.e. slower group self neutralize, wait for a bit and start racing again, the faster group should work together to get ahead safely and putting a gap on the slower group - rules, good sportsmanship and all that, and riders not abiding by that being reported for lack of good judgement?
Even given the worst case scenario, would the field being neutralized be happier having their own race versus an open race?

Obviously this should be avoided if possible but it seems like every week I read race reports about groups passing and getting passed.

madcyclist68 wrote:
True. The liklihood is increased that one group will overcome another. I suppose the determining factor is the velocity of the first group relative to the velocity of the last group. Just for fun, I played around with the math. I used an average velocity of 25 mph for the first group (yesterday, this group was the M35 5's) and 20mph for the last group (in this scenario we would be talking about the 3/4 women). Assuming I did the math correctly,and assuming the 4th group started 15 minutes after the 1st, the 35+ men would overtake the 3/4 women 3 minutes before the end of their race. It would be interesting to know what the average (actual) lap times were for each group.

I don't think the 3/4 women would be happy about having their race neutralized shortly before their finish. The more groups you put on any given course ( except for a point to point race) the greater the chance you have of one group passing another just before a finish.

casey wrote:

Your suggestion would mean having 4 separate groups on a 10 mile course. With 3 groups on the course at once you have an average of 3.3 miles between groups. With 4 groups on a 10 mile course you now have only 2.5 miles between groups and it is more likely that groups will catch each other and get in each other's way. This is why you have to drop one group in order to add another separate category.

True. The liklihood is increased that one group will overcome another. I suppose the determining factor is the velocity of the first group relative to the velocity of the last group. Just for fun, I played around with the math. I used an average velocity of 25 mph for the first group (yesterday, this group was the M35 5's) and 20mph for the last group (in this scenario we would be talking about the 3/4 women). Assuming I did the math correctly,and assuming the 4th group started 15 minutes after the 1st, the 35+ men would overtake the 3/4 women 3 minutes before the end of their race. It would be interesting to know what the average (actual) lap times were for each group.

madcyclist68 wrote:casey wrote:

OK Mr. H here is your chance to play promoter and help SGW out for next year. In order to have a separate field for Cat 4 women next year you need to drop one of the other categories they had this year. So Which field do you drop in order to have a separate women's 4 field next year?

To help limit different categories from catching each other and limit interference with other races SGW made the good decision to only have 3 groups on that 10 mile loop at one time. To maintain this policy for next year you either need to drop one race in order to add another category for women or add another wave or races, which makes for an overly long race day for the promoters, volunteers and officials.

Note I'm all in favor of having separate fields for women 4s but in order to make that happen next year another category is going to have to be dropped so people might get their opinions in about which category should be dropped.

Wouldn't it work to not drop a category? In other words, if you sent the 3/4 Women off 5 minutes behind the P1/2 gals, there would not be any more people on the course- just an additional 5 minutes of time. Since- and this is the big assumption- the P1/2 women are not likely to be caught by the 3/4s? (I don't think the master 5's lapped the women's field).

Your suggestion would mean having 4 separate groups on a 10 mile course. With 3 groups on the course at once you have an average of 3.3 miles between groups. With 4 groups on a 10 mile course you now have only 2.5 miles between groups and it is more likely that groups will catch each other and get in each other's way. This is why you have to drop one group in order to add another separate category.

mhernandez wrote:just be sure not to cook w/ said olive oil after chamois use.

Good suggestion. Except it might work well for a rump roast...

casey wrote:

OK Mr. H here is your chance to play promoter and help SGW out for next year. In order to have a separate field for Cat 4 women next year you need to drop one of the other categories they had this year. So Which field do you drop in order to have a separate women's 4 field next year?

To help limit different categories from catching each other and limit interference with other races SGW made the good decision to only have 3 groups on that 10 mile loop at one time. To maintain this policy for next year you either need to drop one race in order to add another category for women or add another wave or races, which makes for an overly long race day for the promoters, volunteers and officials.

Note I'm all in favor of having separate fields for women 4s but in order to make that happen next year another category is going to have to be dropped so people might get their opinions in about which category should be dropped.

Wouldn't it work to not drop a category? In other words, if you sent the 3/4 Women off 5 minutes behind the P1/2 gals, there would not be any more people on the course- just an additional 5 minutes of time. Since- and this is the big assumption- the P1/2 women are not likely to be caught by the 3/4s? (I don't think the master 5's lapped the women's field).

mhernandez wrote:just be sure not to cook w/ said olive oil after chamois use.

-

SGW and Switters familia,

Thanks for the great times.

epic stuff.

signed,
mhernandrunkafterdawineprimes

ps = next year ya'll can probably split that women's RR field into categories? What a turnout!
Awesome.

OK Mr. H here is your chance to play promoter and help SGW out for next year. In order to have a separate field for Cat 4 women next year you need to drop one of the other categories they had this year. So Which field do you drop in order to have a separate women's 4 field next year?

To help limit different categories from catching each other and limit interference with other races SGW made the good decision to only have 3 groups on that 10 mile loop at one time. To maintain this policy for next year you either need to drop one race in order to add another category for women or add another wave or races, which makes for an overly long race day for the promoters, volunteers and officials.

Note I'm all in favor of having separate fields for women 4s but in order to make that happen next year another category is going to have to be dropped so people might get their opinions in about which category should be dropped.

just be sure not to cook w/ said olive oil after chamois use.

-

SGW and Switters familia,

Thanks for the great times.

epic stuff.

signed,
mhernandrunkafterdawineprimes

ps = next year ya'll can probably split that women's RR field into categories? What a turnout!
Awesome.

SGW,
you put on a great race both Sat. and Sun...and thanks for making landpark a safer race with all the turns.

Keep up the good work

Joe Sauders swears that olive oil is an excellent, yet economical, warming oil. As for chamois cream, only your crotch knows for sure. :wink: