This post is subject to very recruitment. I personally agree with this question. It is useful for the beginner and the deep sense of blogging
Camp America

I think this kind of cooperation is needed for several racing groups. Perhaps something as simple as providing promoters with each others' email addresses and a 1-page "promoter's guide" that explains things like this would encourage promoters to confer with each other before they decide which fields to offer at their races.

lorri,
if you could get promoters to consider cooperating such that they ran different women's fields at different races on the same day or same weekend, that would be, in my opinion, a major improvement in women's racing in our district.
soni

Laurie, there's no reason why a promoter would have to add a field to a criterium. If we're creative, we will encourage promoters to talk to each other and coordinate fields. If there are two crits on one day (more and more common now) or two in one weekend, why should both offer a W1/2/3 and a W3/4 (which seems to be the unspoken norm in about 85% of our crits in the district). Rather than adding a field, promoters could be creative and substitute fields.

For example:

Crit ABC on June 1st could offer a W1/2/3 field and a W3/4 field.

CRIT XYZ on June 1st could offer a W40+ field and a W4 field.

Women appreciate racing against their peers, and separate fields are one way to achieve that -- we know that to be true from the annual BAWC surveys. If promoters offered different fields on the same day, I think we'd see more women (total) racing on a given day.

This isn't unique to women's racing. I think a little shake-up in how we think about choosing race fields for a limited schedule (criteriums) has becoming increasingly important as we see more multiple-race weekends and more days with multiple races. Maybe one race could focus on masters (men and women) racing and one could focus on elite racing. One might choose to include additional women's fields or juniors fields. We've offered a non-traditional schedule at Menlo Park since it's inception in 2006 and I think the racers appreciate our schedule. But I think most race directors just do it the way it's always been done and don't even think about other possible field combinations.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

One suggestion I have to improve racing in the NCNCA is to schedule a one-day race promoters' + race directors' retreat. We would schedule this for November or December (after the race scheduling meeting) or maybe even January. We could include hard content (the how-tos of promoting: securing permits, generating sponsorship, the basics of working with USAC, medical + safety, etc). We would also include some soft content (brainstorming, questions from new promoters, etc). And lastly, we could include break-out sessions for promoters to communicate with each other about their specific races. This would be time for promoters to coordinate their fields.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Back to the topic at hand -- Masters Women. We've had some great ideas and suggestions and there appears to be some interest in restoring masters women's racing into BAR/BAT, so I'm going to set up a formal poll, with all of the options presented here (and maybe some I just make up), and poll the entire NCNCA women's population. I should be able to get the email addresses for all the women racers in the district from USAC so we could reach a broader audience and see what women really want.

Lorri

Lorri,
My reasoning for sharing my idea as a w master 123 35+
road race/time trials is about demographics. It is a chance
that the field could be large enough and promoters to observe that
it could be successful. I envision more master 35+ women teams
being more involved with this field if promoted. It is a safer field
when separating the master 35+ 123 women from the master 35+
cat 4 women.

I honestly believe the super fit/strong 123 women will want
to race the wpro12 or w123 elite field. For most
racers, it is mostly about the competitiveness of the
race, not the win. Although the win or top six is
attractive, it is the "race game" that drives us.

I also believe elite women cat 4 and master 35+
women cat 4 could be mixed in a field because
it is mostly about skills and development in that field.

The present open 30+ field is a combination of skills,
fitness and desire, which is alarmingly dangerous
(wcat1234). And has not been so successful with
numbers on a regular basis, these past few years.

Also I do not see a promoter adding another
women's field in a criterium. I could see a
combination of elite women 4 and
master 35+ cat 4 women in a crit (picked separately).
But not an added master 123 35+ field. Unless of
course this trial field (w master 123 35+) was
successful with the road races
and time trials in 2010.

We should start logically, and take the necessary
steps to promote and support a new field.

So if we just start with road races and time
trials we could be more successful with the numbers
and then perhaps in another year or so make an effort
to add criteriums. Promoters may try it out if the numbers look successful.

A few examples of master crits; you could take a look
San Jose 2009 master crit http://usacycling.org/results/index.php?permit=2009-373
Benicia 2009 master crit https://www.usacycling.org/results/index.php?permit=2009-1482

I raced both; The San Jose Classic: the master
women raced with the cat 3 women, (mixed abilities,
since it was an open master field), technical course.

Benicia Crit, technical course with hill; the break away
lapped the stragglers, not even enough to be a peloton.
Although I noticed the elite 4 women had plenty of room
in the field (earlier in the day) to add a
w master 35+ cat 4 field, the lapped stragglers
(mostly master cat 4 women) would have had
plenty of women to work with if they would have been
included in with the elite 4 field.

Please consider
w master 123 35+
w elite cat 4/w master cat 4 35+

for a start/2010

Laurie Fenech

i like 40+

Okay, in the best of all worlds, we could have a bunch of different BAR/BAT classifications (like the men). In reality, our best bet with promoters would be to suggest ONE classification for this year.

So, if there were only one Women's Masters BAR/BAT classification, what would that be?

And let's assume that this classification would never be combined with W4 racers.

I personally like the idea of an Open Women's 40+. I think 40+ (rather than a 35+) would effectively reduce the outliers (super-fast 35+ W1/2 and super-squirrely W4).

What do others think of this.

Lorri

I would like a masters mamas field, myself as that would be the safest field of all.

But in leiu of this, I am excited for more Women's Masters races and am definitely not a fan of combining them with Cat. 4 fields.

Ali

Laurie, are these races who already have masters fields? Or that you would propose to the promoters?

If we eliminate crits from BAR/BAT that isn't really representative of the A in BAR/BAT = All-around. Then it would become a best all-around road racer (or TTist).

While it would be easier (I think ) to persuade a promoter to add a Masters Women's field to a road race, I don't think it would be impossible for a criterium. Yes, it extends the day, but maybe it's time to shake up the fields a bit.

Road Races/Time Trial only (Not Criteriums...except for Cherry Pie)

Orosi, Pine Flat, Cantua Creek, Wards Ferry, Snelling, Bariani, Copperopolis, Madera, Sea Otter, Wente,
Berkeley Hills, Pescadero, Winters, San Ardo and so on.
Time Trials-Calveras, Dunlap. Benicia, Esparto
Warnerville and others.

BAR/BAT RACE FIELDS

Master women 123 35+ race separately

master women 4 35+/women cat 4 combined or separate

Many of these road races will not end in a mass sprint.

Laurie Fenech

I think most of us would agree that an open masters women's field combined with W4 is a bad idea.

Oh and I should point out that an open masters women and a Cat 4 race isn't a combination that is allowed if both groups are racing for the same prize list. If the two groups are started together but picked separately for separate prizes then the combination is OK. The rules say you can combine age groups in a race but they have to be the same category if both age groups are racing together for the same prizes.

And I think that if promoters offered more masters women's racing, we would see some folks race more often.

Lorri

Casey, I think it's a chicken + the egg proposition. If the NCNCA re-instates a women's masters BAR/BAT, I'm personally willing to lobby all of the promoters to include that field in their races. Sometimes you just have to ask. I know many promoters struggle to know which women's categories to offer, so they just do what they've always done or what everyone else is doing.

And if we do nothing, then nothing ever changes.

I'm willing to go out on a limb for this and I'm guessing that there are promoters willing to support this as well.

Lorri

I should qualify that though I am in favor of BAR/BAT rankings for 35+ 1/2 and 35+ 3/4, I also strongly support races which offer other combinations. When I was more fit (read: didn't get dropped), I learned a lot by racing in the W1/2/3 fields, or at Nevada City W1/2/3/4 field.

Thanks again, all. -- Melissa

OK not wanting to be a wet blanket here but....

Adding more BAR/BAT categories will put pressure on promoters to add more race categories ( or combine more groups) to what in some cases is already an overly long race day.

If many promoters are not going to add the new BAR/BAT categories then the question needs to be asked how many events need to be in the BAR./BAT for a given category to have a meaningful ranking. The reason why master women were dropped from the BAR/BAT before was so few races had the master women category that matched the BAR/BAT category. If only 4 or 5 races offer the category during the season is that enough to have a BAR award for?

Having races for 30+ masters has never been very popular when offered in the past. About the only time that category fills up is the past few years at Winders when other older master categories fill up and riders don't want to go home without having raced.

Personalyl I think 30 is to young to start the masters category so I'm not a fan of 30+ races.

also, interesting enough, the only mass start race i won as a cat 4 was a masters 35+ open race......

i also think that one goal of having the masters cat 4 category would be to help more women feel comfortable upgrading

i totally understand what you are saying, lorri

i guess i was just trying to say that from my perspective, i think the need for a masters cat 1-3 or 1-4 category is greater than the need for a cat 4 masters category. i think there is more of a "hole" in available peer-appropriate categories for the higher category masters. however, i think that both needs are there and if we can do both, the more the merrier.

George, are you talking about men or women? Your comment is a bit confusing to me.

Bunny, there are lots of CAT4 masters women who I would consider safe, experienced racers. Many of them have been racing for many years. You were one of those women until you upgraded. But I know many who may never upgrade and will remain career CAT4s (for the reasons you mentioned: started racing later in life, limited training time, etc). I personally think it would be great to offer an opportunity for the experienced masters W4 to race with their age peers.

W4 is a challenging category. It's NOT a beginner category as many refer to it, even though there are beginners in the category. The range is HUGE -- teens through 60 year olds. There are women who will blow through CAT4 in just a handful of races. And there are those who will race as CAT4 for a season or 2 before upgrading. And there are those who love to race, who are safe, experienced racers, who will likely never win a W4 race but who love the experience of racing. There are women who have been racing W4 since I began racing in 2002. If you glance through the results, you can see by the license number who those women are. I think I speak for many of them when I say a W4 masters racing opportunity would be very welcome.

Lorri

I'm a "master" at 40, I'm a Cat 3 with now zero upgrade points (pretty sure), and I would love to race with 1/2s. The few chances I had this year were fast but smooth. I would welcome racing any time with women closer to my age who really know what they're doing. Every chance I've had this year has been a (humbling) treat.

Katie Kelly

It may be prudent to overall the BAR categories for the master men too, although no one voices opposition when BAR is discussed at the board meetings. Here's my suggestion:

30+4, 30+1/2/3; 40+4, 40+1/2/3; 50+4, 50+1/2/3

1) Category 5 riders have already been discussed in other threads
2) Masters actually start at age 30
3) It gives more opportunity to double dip
4) Older cat 4s wouldn't have to race with cat 1 riders

i guess i didn't say it, lorri, because i figured everyone knew my stance on this--i do not like picking separately

it is often unsafe--you have the potential for races sprinting for a win in the middle or even the back of another group who may be sitting up

i avoid some races when they are picked separately, depending upon other circumstances of the race.....

-----

about masters racing in general:

as a very old cat 3 racer, i generally don't do many 3/4 races and won't whether they are masters 3/4 or not

i like to do 3s races when they are available as that is my peer group
and i do some 1/2/3 races but these can be a bit above my head--especially for the road races because they are too long for my available training hours

right now, i think cat 4 women have pretty good opportunities in our district. most races have separate cat 4 races, or at least a 3/4 race. i always voice my opinion that cat 4 women should have their own race. they have the numbers for sure!

but i don't think that cat 3 racers have as much opportunity--we are stuck choosing between racing with brand new racers and professional racers much of the time. even cat 2 women can be out of their league when the pros show up. i personally value the masters racers as a place for experienced racers who don't race and train full- time to do competitive team racing. therefore, i see it mostly for 1-3 categories. i don't mind making it an open category because i expect that only more experienced cat 4s will want to race in this type of format.

I am in total favor of including a master's field in the BAR/BAT rankings. My vote is for:

master women 1/2 35+
master women 3/4 35+

I'm a 41 yr. old cat. 3 racer who works plenty and is juggling a full life, and I don't think that I could ever compete with the strong 35+ cat. 1/2 in this region. I don't feel as though they are my peers. I still enter some of the races, but I often get discouraged when a cat 1 is on the line with me (this has happened to me 3 times).

As a related-aside, I don't support combining an open W35+ master's field with cat. 4 women in crits. Unfortunately it is usually the newer category 4s who are pulled from the race because some cat. 1/2 racer wants to warm up for her later race. It is my belief that in that situation, those cat. 4 women are the ones who should have priority to race and should be pulled from a race only when they are either a general danger to the other cat. 4s or the race as a whole, or are in danger of being lapped near the race finish and thus influencing the results. But I digress...

Thanks,
Melissa

Two Masters Women's BAR/BAT categories. The only thing I might disagree with Laurie is combing the fields (Bunny, I'm surprised you didn't mention this since I know you've expressed no love for picking fields separately within a race). I'm actually re-thinking this for the combined W4/W4 35+ at Menlo Park. When you pick fields separately, women who might not sprint for the finish, who might be mid-pack will sprint, along with folks who might opt out of the sprint because they're out of contention. However, I don't think this is as big an issue for the W4 as it is for the men's fields since the field limit is smaller (50) versus the larger men's fields (75 or 100, depending on the combination of fields.

So, masters is technically 30+. NCNCA has typically used the 5-year threshold for BAR/BAT (ie 35+, 45+, 55+). Is 35+ really the appropriate threshold for women's racing? Most women begin riding a bike later in life than men do. With the exception of collegiate athletes and the rare 20 year olds, the demographic is highly 35+. Would it be more appropriate to make 40+ the distinction for women?

The burden on the NCNCA to add Women's Masters back into the BAR/BAT is very small (calculating results and purchasing a trophy).

The burden on race promoters could also be very small. For criteriums, would it be appropriate to pick the W1/2/3 and the W1/2/3 Masters separately? With smallish fields already, would it dilute the results? I would like to think that if there is a separate masters women's podium that we would see more women racing, especially at the W3 level (since that's where we seem to lose racers -- after they upgrade). So, adding the W1/2/3 masters could be a great retention tool for the older racers. For road races, it's not that challenging to add a separate field for the masters (or to pick them separately). I think Masters W4 , picked among a combined W4 field s a no-brainer and would be appreciated by the many, many women who are masters racing as W4.

So, what do we think of this? Officials? Promoters? Racers?

i like the 35+ 1/2/3 and 35+ 4 categories that Lauraleen suggests

i would differ, however, in saying that i would not always want a masters 35+ 1/2/3 road race to be the same distance as the pro/1/2/3

for a race like pine flat where there is really only one option, that is fine
but for races that there is an option, i would prefer to go a shorter distance

the difference for many masters is a limitation in training hours that makes it difficult to be competitive for the long pro/1/2/3 road races

Your responses are appreciated and thanks Lorrie for
heading off this topic. Organizing our bar/bat could influence race categories....

I would like to see women master123 35+ road races
(same distance as the women pro123)
....and then master 4 35+ along with the women 4 category
(but picked separately).

Especially at Cherry Pie (field #1...pro123 women and master women 123 35+ and then field #2...women cat 4 with master women cat 4 35+ race together picked separately), yet others separate fields (road races) such as....Sea Otter, Madera, Wente, Berkeley Hills RR, San Ardo, Winters and all the tt"s and so on....

I realize our fields are maturely growing and master women teams are blossoming in our district.
If we organize at 35+; our fields could be large enough to be competitive.

so my vote would be for bar/bat
master women 123 35+
master women cat 4 35+

Laurie Fenech
bici sport

Kelly, I'm with you. As a master, I would welcome the opportunity to race against my peers. But, I don't think racing with older CAT1 and CAT2 women is really racing against my peers.

I think having an older masters classification (40 versus 35) would be a good solution.

A look at the NCNCA demographics would definitely shed some light on the situation.

As a cat 4, I am unlikely to be influenced by an open category no matter what the situation is. In fact, i would probably deliberately not participate even tho I qualify as a Master. It's just too hard in a small field with no place to hide.

Kelly

+45

Or at least a +40 3/4.

BTW, the poll will only let you choose one option, so if you have other thoughts, please post them directly to the forum post.