no second thoughts. just busy on race day. next year.

and thanks for racing at Menlo Park!!!

velogirl wrote:I wanted to call you up for your support of women's cycling. you've shared lots of great ideas with us, Kieran.

well if you truly wanted to do that, then you could have looked at your little reg list, and seen my name in it, and that I picked up a number. :lol: So perhaps you had second thoughts? LOL!

-kieran

I wanted to call you up for your support of women's cycling. you've shared lots of great ideas with us, Kieran.

velogirl wrote:Kieran! Were you at Menlo Park? You missed your call-up.

Of course I was there! I used to be able to say the only black guy so I'm easy to see, but it seems like that's fortunately changing lately so you'd have to figure out which one of the 10 I am. Hahaha

although I'm pretty easy to spot anyway...black, 6'4" 210lbs, riding a bright yellow bike, with "Team Oakland" written all over my kit. I don't blend in too well in this sport......

Call up for what? I was like 11th or so in the 3 race I think.... no where near worth any sort of call up.

-kieran

Kieran! Were you at Menlo Park? You missed your call-up.

velogirl wrote:there are a number of reasons I won't run that field together again:

first, we turned away too many racers. there were about 60 men on the waiting list. that alone tells me I should run two races.

.........

I'm hoping next year we can fit in one more race so I can offer a P/1/2 and an E3.

Lorri

I hate to say I TOLD YOU SOOOO!!! LMFAO!!! :-D Here's a little song about that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsm2hSKkH7E

All jokes aside though, the race was run well and fun. The Beer was a nice treat, and it was good beer too!

The P1/2/3 was definitely a bit dangerous. The problem was most 3's can't handle that pace and their bike handling skills deteriorate directly proportional to their fatigue. So by the end of the race a lot were just brain dead and all over the place. That's likely what cause that huge crash on the finishing straight.

(btw thank God I wasn't in that...it was ugly...I mean UGLY. I ain't seen ugly like that since last year when 2 guys hit parking meters at Burlingame! I mean for Christ sakes... one guy was sliding on the pavement at 30+mph yelling like someone was cutting his head off.....)

Somehow I was mysteriously marked as one of two unknown riders in the results despite me rolling across the line by myself....around pos 40 or so....hmmm. Haha, o'well.

On another positive note, here is an example of near perfect field selection (https://www.sportsbaseonline.com/files_flyers/3242.pdf) I hope someday races out here can rise to that level of practicality.

-kieran

there are a number of reasons I won't run that field together again:

first, we turned away too many racers. there were about 60 men on the waiting list. that alone tells me I should run two races.

I think it's a bit dangerous when the E3s are gunning for a finish in the middle of the E1/2s who are not in contention. I've decided that dually-picked fields probably aren't the best idea, especially in a field this large.

I know some E3s who didn't register because they were intimidated by the E1/2s.

I know some E1/2s who didn't register because they were intimidated by the E3s.

I guess that's really it.

I'm hoping next year we can fit in one more race so I can offer a P/1/2 and an E3.

Lorri

Quote:From the promoter, I won't likely offer the E1/2/3 race next year.
Why not? - I raced the P123 and thought it was a good time. It was a good opportunity for better 3's to race up.

Quote:I agree with velogirl. That was a very high caliber field--plenty of nationally competitive pros. Better to have the E3s separate.

Why? I'm a 3 and more than held my own in that field. I agree its not for everyone but most who shouldn't be there get shelled at that pace anyway.

By the way it was a well run event and you really did come through with the free beer! Thanks!

I agree with velogirl. That was a very high caliber field--plenty of nationally competitive pros. Better to have the E3s separate.

It was a fun race to watch--boy those boys are fast!!

From the promoter, I won't likely offer the E1/2/3 race next year. If I can compress the schedule and add in an additional race, I will offer separate P/1/2 and E3 races.

velogirl wrote:which field composition are you referring to?

The men's 1/2,3 field (sorry, it was in the subject, but not the body of my post).

which field composition are you referring to?

Anybody have any thoughts on how that field composition worked out, from either a promoter's, official's or racer's view?

I can't answer for every promoter, but I think the historically small number of E1 and E2 women made it infeasible to pick them separately. Heck, not so long ago you would see 10-20 women in an open women's field. The increased number of women racers has made it feasible for promoters to offer separate fields in Northern CA (it's not like this is much of the US).

Picking a race separately can have negative consequences (as Bunny noted). It's also more challenging for the officials. And it creates additional expense for the promoter.

This has nothing to do with the Menlo Park race in particular -- generally speaking I wonder why the separation breaks down at cat. 2.

When I was a three I loved to see that the 3s were picked separately. I thought of it as an incentive and it made me want to go to certain races. I'm sure women 2s would feel just as inticed amounting better turn outs and eliminating the need for additional categories. No one just races for racing's sake. Eventually if you're good (upgrade points wise) you'll be automatically upgraded. A strong cat 4 racer is not a cat 4 for long. So it does come down to upgrade points in the end.

And, I second the 21st place sprinters thought lol. But have you seen a cat. 5 men's race -- :arrow: they all sprint (no offense guys -- and I say heck ya go for it)! I think I've only seen one crash resulting in late sprinters and others sitting up so I think that's minor.

Anyhow, maybe Casey could answer my curiosity kill the cat question.

as far as picking categories separately goes, i am usually against it

it often leads to a situation where racers in the lower category are sprinting for their placings behind racers in the higher category who may even be sitting up as they are outside their placings, which can be a bad scene at sprint speeds

when i am choosing which races i am entering, i am less likely to enter if fields are picked separately even though it often means i am less likely to win a prize

Charlotte, a race promoter has the discretion to pick separately for podium and upgrade points. But this is only done if you see it designated in the race ad. For example, in some W1/2/3 races, the W3 are placed separately. That is not the case at Menlo Park. We are, however, providing a second opportunity for the W3 to race in a W3-only race.

Our goal was to provide a RACING opportunity for the W1/2 -- which we haven't done in the past. We eliminated a men's race to add in the W1/2/3, even though we will lose income doing this. I didn't know we were also required to provide an UPGRADE opportunity. For most folks, I would guess that racing is about the racing experience, not just about upgrades.

So Casey, how come 2s are not picked separately from 1s? Like the 3s (in a 1,2,3 race) ... Just think if all categories were picked separately for upgrade points -- us gals wouldn't have much to complain about then, eh. Overall standings in a finish is how you placed for prizes, true but if 3s are distinguished from 2s, 3s from 4s and so on, why not for the 1s vs. 2s?

When results are uploaded to USA cycling, you see the distinction between 1s and 2s on the overal list. I've always wondered why that is done -- I assume rankings -- but not upgrade. Hum.

Yes, I saw that race 2/3 group in Napa! Very cool.

Quote:If I had a choice between a 2/3 race verses and P,1,2 I'd go for the 2/3 to have a better chance of doing well.

I don't know if you noticed, but that's what we're doing at the Napa River Velo GP. I thought we'd give the W2's and W3's a rare chance to race their peers without ubers and with separate results. https://www.sportsbaseonline.com/Item.aspx?item_id=3220

My apologies to those excluded. Several of you have called. You gave us a great race last year, and I hope you come ride in the Elites or Masters.

If it is a 1/2/3 race with one overall prize list then upgrade points are only awarded for the overall placing. If it s a 1/2/3 race where the 3s are racing for a separate prizelist then the 3s get upgrade points based on how they placed against the other Cat 3s but the size of the field is only based on the number of Cat 3s in the race, not the overall starting field size.

Gottcha ... so how does upgrade points work ... for example in a 1/2 race if I place 10 over all but 3 in the 2s -- am I awarded upgrade points based upon my placing as a 2, not as I placed in the entire race...

I guess I should know this but I don't lol. So my point is that if women 2s and even 3s receive points based upon the aforementioned, there really isn't anything wrong with the categories the way they are.

But a sneaking suspesion tells me otherwise -- and thus the aim of helping female racers with more categories ...

thanks for your feedback, Charcyclist. the W3s have the opportunity to race against their peers in a W3-only race. the W4s have that opportunity as well. I've added the W1/2/3 race for 2009, but given the low number of W1 and W2 in the NCNCA, I wanted to give the W3s the opportunity to race a second time in the day and fill out that field a bit.

the only PRO designation as per USA Cycling is a registered rider of a UCI team.

Mostly, women's categories are fine ... although a 2/3 category would be a race amongst peers instead of Pros and 1s. (Yes, 1/2 women are close but that's also like saying 3/4s are close).

It would just be nice if all races picked each category separately -- scoring the Pro/1s together, 2s, etc. That way women 2s and 3s can still have a chance of upgrade points when racing against Pros and 1s.

If I had a choice between a 2/3 race verses and P,1,2 I'd go for the 2/3 to have a better chance of doing well. But since it's hard for race organizers to offer mulitiple female categories, the enticing, easiest fix-it would be to score the racers in their categories -- all of them.

Anyhow this probably is off base, and likely referes to a thread 4 pages ago but I'm tossing it out there for feedback.

velogirl wrote:

The women's cycling world is a very different place than it was in 2002. I know you haven't been racing that long, but I'm sure Casey could throw out some numbers. When I founded Velo Girls, there were very few women who raced bikes. It's the efforts of women like me, Sabine Dukes from Velo Bella, and Brooke Kuhne from BAWC, who have grown women's racing in the NCNCA. And it's the efforts of Nicola Cranmer, Jen VanMuckey, Sarah Lightfoot, Elis Bradshaw, Karen Kurrek, Linda Jackson, Lisa Hunt, Laura Charmeda, and other elite team leaders who have developed the elite ranks.

We are very fortunate here that we have a robust and growing women's racing scene. I hope you can come to appreciate that fact, rather than criticize us for our efforts.

Quoted to reinforce the mention of some of those who've worked hard to grow women's racing locally. Good for you - what you've been doing not only grows this sport locally ('cause we all know that a lady racing will bring her man/partner out too to help or even race if he's so inclined) but also encourages other women and girls to consider racing themselves or trying Triathlons or century rides or other on-the-bike activities. I got into racing after helping a national level womens mountain bike team - they made it seem like so much fun that I had to try it myself. But to me the biggest lesson of helping that team was seeing the reaction of girls when they realized that they too could be a part of this scene. They'd ooh and aah at the pink helmets and laugh at the long hair trailing out from under helmets as the racers went by, but you could also see the wheels turning as these girls felt empowered by seeing that women can be competitive too.

In the end, I see where Kieran's coming from with his suggestions for more populous or popular categories, so the promoter can raise more money to put back into this sport. But as Lori from VG has respectfully pointed out, that is only part of her team's priorities for the Menlo Park GP. The same challenges face every promoter as they balance daylight, overtime fees, racing group sizes and appropriate mixes of categories. Overall there is balance, with smaller and less well paying groups like Juniors and Beginners given opportunities to race, as well as the big ones like E+M Cat 4 men.

Velogirl you misunderstood my comment re: addressing the fees. My bad for not elaborating.

i didn't mean that as a slam against you, i meant in general for all NCNCA races. Can NCNCA, and/or other advocacy groups/advocates lobby the cities to reduce the fees they impose on the race organizers. I think you're doing a great job and glad the race is on.

Gotta figure out how to do the cut and paste thing, so i can feel like a power blogger.

wow. what a spirited discussion.

i just wanted to thank lori for all of her work in supporting women's cycling in the region and working to make the environment more accessible and welcoming to women. i attended one of her clinics when i first started racing and i not only learned a lot, but it definitely eased my anxiety in entering racing and made a comfortable atmosphere having a friendly face at my races. i look forward to trying the grand prix this year!

i also wanted to say that, to me personally, kieran has been been especially encouraging, providing me suggestions and causing me to push my comfort level. i say this because, i believe his intentions are in the right place...although his delivery might be a bit off.... and i am greatly appreciative for kieran's help and encouragement over this past year

it is really great to see the women's field sizes growing and the racing getting more competitive-- so something must be going right. thanks very much to the velogirls, velo bella, bawc, the early bird mentoring, and others i know i have missed.

i just wanted to make one substantive point: the finances behind race entry fees are not as simple as we make them out to be at first glance...

while not having full women's fields is a "money loser" - so too is having full fields where a lot of people are paying discounted entry fees of only $10. so, if a full race is $30 and 100 people enter, that should be $3000 revenue, versus a field in which half the participants are paying full price and half are paying discounted fees, which generates $2000. (This would be like a E4 and M4 race category). If you eliminated the race in which half the field are second races, that means that having a different race with all 'full-charge' fees, means that the field only needs to have 66 people (not 100) to be generating the same fees (as a race with a lot of second-race dayers). (This would be like a E4 and W field). Now, I am not saying women's field typically have 66+ people-- but i just point this out because the profit loss isn't always as large as we first perceive, especially if a lot of the value-added revenue is coming from 'second-race' fees.

richierich2u wrote:This is the best soap opera going. Better than All My Children in it's prime :-)
Why isn't anyone addressing the fees being levied by the city issue.
Seems if those were lower, fees could come down, purses could go up, could extend the event and not sacrifice any categories.
Surely there are some lobbyist types in this white collar dominated sport.

Richie Rich, I think a soap opera requires more than just one or two participants. This has turned into more of a monologue, don't you think?

I have addressed the fees from Menlo Park. We have been in negotiation since last summer. I was able to negotiate them down a bit from the original demands. I was about ready to retire this race but was able to secure sponsorship to cover a good portion of the additional fees. We did not increase registration fees from last year. There is not enough daylight on March 8th to add additional races.

Next?

This is the best soap opera going. Better than All My Children in it's prime :-)
Why isn't anyone addressing the fees being levied by the city issue.
Seems if those were lower, fees could come down, purses could go up, could extend the event and not sacrifice any categories.
Surely there are some lobbyist types in this white collar dominated sport.

casey wrote:When it comes to developing women's racing money is meaningless if you don't offer plenty of opportunities for women to race. Not only do you have to provide plenty of opportunities for women to race but you have to give them the chance to race against their own skill and age groups. One of the reasons why the NCNCA region has more women's racing than anywhere else in the country is because we have had more separate Cat 4 women's race than any place else in the country. To continue the growth we have had in the past then our promoters are going to have to start offering more separate Cat 3 women's races.

If promoting races was just about money then why would any promoter ever offer a junior race since junior field tend to be smaller than even the women's fields. Or why would a promoter waste valuable race time to offer free kids races if promoting a race was only about money. Promoting a race is also about promoting the sport in general and part of promoting the sport is holding races for those categories that you want to develop and grow.

I hear you Casey, but comparing children to adult women showing us their preferences with their attendance (and earned money) are a bit difficult to compare. IMHO ALL races should have dedicated time for the juniors to race (albeit smaller times and run EARLY), and the kiddie race in the middle of day is something NO ONE EVER COMPLAINS ABOUT. (at least I've never heard it). Losing money so support children is almost always a good idea, because the children don't really have money or choice and it's a positive activity for them.

Usually I agree with the points you make Casey they are almost always well thought out, but in this case I respectfully DISAGREE with comparing grown women to children.

Actually I can't remember when I've ever seen a free kiddie 1/2 lap that had less than 20 kids spinning those little tricycles and bigwheels as fast as possible... by their parents show of support and attendance at those event's it's obvious the interest is there.

btw, I still fail to see how fields of less than 20 W3s at criteriums really helps forward women's cycling or their skill in riding with larger groups. If anything it's a solid reminder to other promoters about why they shouldn't offer independent W3 fields.

How about we work on the attrition issue. If that ever gets solved the 3/4 and/or the 1/2/3 fields would start filling up and having wait lists. At that point, and only at that point would I say women are being HELD BACK from competing. Women choosing not to compete, is NOT being held back.

-kieran

bunny wrote:kcox920 wrote:

Also the de-emphasis of competition is likely more attractive to a larger female crowd.

But now we have the answer. If we were to decrease the competitiveness of a bike race, more women would be interested in it.

This kind of blatant sexism is not appreciated. I think this may be the root of why you aren't getting the discussion that you want from us, Kieran.

How you managed to come to a sexist conclusion after I laid out a lengthy explanation of reasons a lot women opt out of criteriums for other sports or road races and my own personal support of womens cycling is quite an amazing feat of reading comprehension. Don't worry I won't waste any more well thought out truths, it's apparently beyond the reading level of a few people on this thread.

-kieran

When it comes to developing women's racing money is meaningless if you don't offer plenty of opportunities for women to race. Not only do you have to provide plenty of opportunities for women to race but you have to give them the chance to race against their own skill and age groups. One of the reasons why the NCNCA region has more women's racing than anywhere else in the country is because we have had more separate Cat 4 women's race than any place else in the country. To continue the growth we have had in the past then our promoters are going to have to start offering more separate Cat 3 women's races.

If promoting races was just about money then why would any promoter ever offer a junior race since junior field tend to be smaller than even the women's fields. Or why would a promoter waste valuable race time to offer free kids races if promoting a race was only about money. Promoting a race is also about promoting the sport in general and part of promoting the sport is holding races for those categories that you want to develop and grow.

kcox920 wrote:

Also the de-emphasis of competition is likely more attractive to a larger female crowd.

I had about had it with this thread, but this forced me to make another comment.

I appreciate Casey's informative comments, Jess' support, and Sabine making me laugh.

But now we have the answer. If we were to decrease the competitiveness of a bike race, more women would be interested in it.

This kind of blatant sexism is not appreciated. I think this may be the root of why you aren't getting the discussion that you want from us, Kieran.

I see where this year you don't have 55+ plus... why can't you do like you have in the past, and run the 55s with the 45s and pick separate

velogirl wrote:

There is attrition in women's racing just as there is in men's racing. And for women, they have other priorities that take precedence in their 20s and 30s -- namely starting a family. I can't tell you how many of my racers are pregnant or have recently become moms. That's one of the things that makes women's cycling different than men's cycling.

It's a nice try to be sure, but I'm not really buying that. I used to be a triathlete some 5 years ago, and there is no shortage of female competitors there. Their ages are spread across the board and the fields are big. Big enough to split women's fields into 5yr age groups from 20 up to 40..... Like cycling triathlon takes a bit of training too, so the "I gotta have kids that's why I don't want to race bicycles anymore" argument is a bit of hot air IMHO.

For reference:
http://www.santabarbaratriathlon.com/Results/SBT08_resultsWODyn.cfm
http://www.runraceresults.com/FlatFile%5CRCOB2008_AGE.htm
http://triresults.com/home/triathlon_results/281
http://www.santabarbaratriathlon.com/Results/SBT08_LongDyn.cfm

I'll now speculate on the REAL issue about womens cycling and attrition:

Bicycle racing, criterium bicycle racing in particular, is DANGEROUS. I can't tell you how many men (and especially women) specifically avoid criteriums because of the high risk of injury.

A LOT of men tend to go after adrenaline soaked sports regardless of danger to their person or wallet. Criterium racing is a perfect example of that. It makes no logical sense to race your $7000 Trek Madone with $2500 Zipp 808 tubular wheels in a 100 man crash prone race just to have a 10% chance of winning $50.... seriously. Criteriums can be likened more to a beer pitcher drinking contest...we know it's bad for us, but men want to see who can drink the fastest and the most anyway. It is a stupid side effect of testosterone. Thus mens criteriums always have participants, just like bars always have patrons...

Women tend to be a bit smarter than that. Especially with regard to activities that pose a great danger to damaging their person. Thus I suspect when it gets too dangerous, too often a lot of women will wisely look at the data and go for another sport. (or limit themselves to road races which are notably safer...) If they get hurt bad enough in a crash, maybe get rid of the bike altogether...
Probably only the most competitive of ladies will remain in the sport. That is likely the reason that when women do finally upgrade to a 2 or a 1 they are so fast. Those ladies are out to win, and aren't afraid to train with the faster mens training rides to get to that point.

In light of this Triathlons which are generally casually competitive at best from 90% of the participants and where the rate of big injury or big cost by crashing bike are low have a LOT OF WOMEN participating and flooding into the sport.(seems like at nearly the same rate as men...) 5k, 10k, and marathons fall into the same category.

Also the de-emphasis of competition is likely more attractive to a larger female crowd.

In light of the above and probably other similar speculations, I can see why the attrition rate is high. Furthermore having more women at criteriums will likely not stem the flow of women out of the sport. It may likely do the exact opposite! A good way to stem this attrition would be to change the cost/value equation to appeal to a larger audience.

One suggestion might be to try to run more women's only road races. That is definitely safer and changes the value equation.

Perhaps with a raging profit Menlo Park with fields selected to maximize participation, the extra money could be used to really attack the true problem of attrition.

velogirl wrote:
We are very fortunate here that we have a robust and growing women's racing scene. I hope you can come to appreciate that fact, rather than criticize us for our efforts.

not criticizing so much as offering some suggestions on how you could win more.

-kieran

velogirl wrote:
BTW, do you really race for prizes? as an E3? prizes are the icing on the cake. as a promoter, my priority is to provide a high-quality racing experience, and that doesn't include a gazillion-dollar prize list.

No I don't race for prizes, that is stupid. They are nice to have at the end of a race though if you manage to place well. Personally I prefer Pie's, and Wine/Beer as prizes over money.

Imagine how fast the preme sprint would be for a full keg of Fat Tire? versus $20 or a free cheapo-excess training tire.

-kieran

slight change of topic, hopefully not at the risk of being denigrated
Why $20 for a second race? Will this be the norm for this year?

velogirl wrote:Kieran, there are lots of solutions to growing women's cycling. How many of those have you personally contributed to? Field selection is one solution. As is women's mentoring and clinics and women's only teams. I've personally introduced more than 200 women to the sport of bike racing since 2002. What have you done?

I've given away 3 road bicycles bought with my own after tax money to women who expressed interest in racing or riding (some $1500 in total). They know who they are. I also try to encourage female riders to race whenever possible.

It's funny because I'm one of the larger proponents of women's cycling amongst my peers. I find myself being the only one asking why there isn't a womens tour de france at the same time as the mens? I mean hell they already have the rolling road closure....what's wrong with extending it for another 30minutes for a women's pro peloton to come through. The helicopters, start/finish, and all the people are already out there...I'm sure they would stay to see the ladies slug it out on the same courses...

They could do the same thing in CA, with what would seem a minimal increase in cost as the stuff is ALREADY setup. Not sure why it isn't that way. For that matter road races lend themselves well towards forwarding women's cycling in a way that doesn't damage the profit of the race. The capacity of a RR course is nearly infinite.

-kieran

roadie4life wrote:sabine wrote:Holy crap this thread is funny.

Did a guy really write to one of the top contributors of women's racing in Northern California and suggest that she give up a women's racing category at her event to accommodate yet another male category?

to: customercare@athleta.com
from: kcox920
My girlfriend recently received a catalog from your company. In looking through it all I saw was pictures of hot athletic women wearing your clothing. All I could think is how unfair it is. Especially when you compare it to catalogs like Bass Pro Shops, International Male, Cabela's and JR's Cigars. It seems to me that you could have included some clothing for men because there is a market for it and you are leaving money on the table. Attached is a 32 slide PowerPoint presentation with some suggestions on improving your marketing and clothing selection. Next time I would like to see less of those women and more clothing for me.
Sincerely,
kcox920

this is funny. Of course unlike women's only clothing catalogs/stores, a women's only amateur criterium in the bay area would struggle seriously financially.....this reference is an interesting line of reasoning....

This is all very funny. Surely you people have to work right?

Yes, the Menlo Park Grand Prix is a cool race. It's fun, and the spirits are high. I remember having a lot of fun with my 3rd race as a 5 back in '06. Congratulations Lorri. I'm have 100% faith that you and many other women have done a lot for women's cycling, and will continue to. Your race is a pillar of the women's sport of cycling.

Is it really necessary to start from a prone position before making a suggestion or observation... (LMAO!) Or even restating the obvious.

Now that we have that out of the way can we get back to what I was talking about? Which was the the purposeful missing out on money. I'll supply just a short list of data from a quick look at a few 2008 race fields:

Cherry Pie 2008: ~55 W P/1/2/3
~30 W4
~100 E3
~110 P/1/2

Menlo Park 2008 ~35 W3
~45 W4
~100 M1/2/3
~88 E3

Ronde Van Brisbeen 2008 Day 1 (limited to 75 max due to course I believe)
*13* W3
~70 P/1/2
~50 E3
~70 M4

Wente Vineyards Classic 19 W1/2
11 W3
30 W4 (and master)
88 P/1/2
67 M/1/2/3
77 E3
74 M E4

Santa Cruz 2008 23 W/1/2/3
18 W4
48 E3
77 P/1/2
66 M1/2/3

Even from that *very* small amount of data from the some 70 or so races put on every year you can see a bit of a trend. There are usually more P/1/2 and E3s than you can really fit in one race. So by combining them to one race you are missing out on 50-100 * (race entry) for your race. Also the master 35+ 1/2/3 is usually a near full field too, so by eliminating that there goes another 80-100 * (race entry). Just look at how the fields are filling up already and you can see the one where there is the most down pressure.... you'll probably miss out on nearly twice that many master 35+ racers.

Hmmmm, wasn't there a complaint about Menlo Park asking for another $7000?... well with those missed fields... it's easy to see why money would be a problem, you just kissed the $7k away easily with the missed fields. But hey like you said before...
velogirl wrote:
I'm not all that worried about missed income, Kieran. I hope you won't be either.

Money is no object. Since it isn't please don't be upset by me saying your complaints about Menlo Park asking for more money are silly when you specifically pick fields in a manner to hemorrhage money. Now if the fields were being done in a way to really maximize experience/revenue and Menlo was asking for more then I'd have more sympathy and you'd be right to be frustrated and upset.
*********************

I like the suggestion here: http://www.ncncaracing.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1618&sid=edd912341c8ae2... This is a good example of a great compromise that also maximizes use of the limited time available for the race and maximizes field size/use. Unfortunately it doesn't work for courses as short as Menlo so other practical options might be considered here.

********************

How about what I mentioned here:
kcox920 wrote:
How about some good ol' CAPITALISM?! Simple supply and demand economics. If you want more women to race then LOWER the race fees and RAISE the cash prizes for the 3s and 4s. Keep the prices low and the priZes high until the numbers grow to where it isn't necessary.

Since there is truly a shortage of women racers, they should NOT be paying the same as the packed men's fields. I'll bet if you analysed it carefully the price women should pay would be about $10-$15 entry, with $5 second races for Elite or Women's fields. Low entry with high payout will bring them out and keep them out for sure!

Have you tried that? What were the results? You know by running a a big profit race you could create a fund to buy more women's fields at other races to offset the money loss other promoters see by doing it. Just another capitalist suggestion. Wouldn't that help womens cycling too? I'm sure women would like deep discounted entry fees at a few other races due to the racing profitable success Menlo Park could be for a women's cycling fund....

I've also made several suggestions on alternate field configurations, so I'm not sure how it can be said I haven't offered options....

Quote:I'm a 3. It's not a matter of picking the 3s separately. I'll happily suffer and be dropped from a P/1/2/3 race (better than being crashed out of a 3s race!). I actually wish there were more opportunities to race a P/1/2/3 and an E3 for 19-34y/o racers. It's a matter of numbers like I was saying above. A P/1/2 race this close to everyone *will* sell out, and a E3 race *will* sell out. That's 200 riders versus only 100 for combining it into one P/1/2/3.

My point as I originally mentioned is that those money making opportunities shouldn't be missed out on. In this case your race is missing out on $3500 extra dollars for eliminating a field that sells out.

The mens 5 always should be there just like the women's 4s. Does it need to be 45minutes? No, make them both 30minutes, and get them done in a quick hour. They are beginners anyway with low endurance. The field limit on the 5s makes it not make as much sense to have them on the surface for over 30minutes anyway.

I love Menlo Park. It's a great race, Lorri! And the amount of fun that the gals and (few) guys working the race are having is unparalleled all year long. I was really bummed when I heard it might be cancelled. Great thanks to your saviour & benefactor!!!

I am very satisfied that this discussion of categories has remained constructive, even though it touches on sensitive topics. The purpose of this forum is a sharing of ideas. Like Kieran, I've made some suggestions in the past with similar practical supporting arguments. I don't happen to agree with him on several points in this instance, however.

First of all, many many Pro/1/2 racers (at least males) don't want to race with 3's, which tends to diminish the quality of the race, if not the census.

Secondly, two 5's / W4's race in an hour is unrealistic. It's not 30 minutes, it's 25 minutes if there are no delays or crashes. And it would be uncomfortable to charge them full fee for a half-race.

Finally, I agree whole-heartedly with the sentiment that those who opine should also act. Promote a race, Kieran!! It's GREAT fun!! And it feels really terrific to create more and different opp's for people to race.

Congratulations Lorri for creating a race that gives women the same kinds of multi-race options that we male masters often have. It's certainly risky given the smaller demographics, so we should really applaud and assist her in that. For my part, I'm happily reg'd for two categories as of this morning. Thanks!!

Z-Man

sabine wrote:Holy crap this thread is funny.

Did a guy really write to one of the top contributors of women's racing in Northern California and suggest that she give up a women's racing category at her event to accommodate yet another male category?

to: customercare@athleta.com
from: kcox920
My girlfriend recently received a catalog from your company. In looking through it all I saw was pictures of hot athletic women wearing your clothing. All I could think is how unfair it is. Especially when you compare it to catalogs like Bass Pro Shops, International Male, Cabela's and JR's Cigars. It seems to me that you could have included some clothing for men because there is a market for it and you are leaving money on the table. Attached is a 32 slide PowerPoint presentation with some suggestions on improving your marketing and clothing selection. Next time I would like to see less of those women and more clothing for me.
Sincerely,
kcox920

For those who've been around this area long enough to and have watched and created the meteoric rise in Women's racing (numbers and quality) - and have traveled enough in the US to know that we have America's best of both in our region ...

thanks for putting up with all this crap.

Holy crap this thread is funny.

Did a guy really write to one of the top contributors of women's racing in Northern California and suggest that she give up a women's racing category at her event to accommodate yet another male category?

Holy moley, thats rich.

And I congratulate Lorri on offering a far more diplomatic response to that than I would have.

Sabine

casey wrote:
As I have said lots of times When there are multi races on a single day then the promoters of both events should coordinate schedules so that more categories can be offered for those groups who normally don't get their own races.

the only thing I would add to this would be that it would be nice to even see the promoters of both events on a weekend (not just a single day)coordinate schedules so that more categories can be offered for those groups who normally don't get their own races.

Having talked to lots of newer racers and lot of women I can tell you that.

1) Especially newer racers prefer to ride in events that are just for their age/category and they don't like racing with higher category riders in general.

2) A number of women CAt 4s don't look forward to upgrading to Cat 3 since it generally means having to race against the Pro/1/2 Women.

If you want to encourage more women to race then there needs to be more Cat 4 only races for women and there needs to be more Cat 3 only races for women. Promoting a race shouldn't be about figuring out how you can maximize the number of entries you can get for the day.

As I have said lots of times When there are multi races on a single day then the promoters of both events should coordinate schedules so that more categories can be offered for those groups who normally don't get their own races.

Quote:Kieran said: I seriously hope both you and the promoter are more open to suggestion than I've seen/read here. More input, should always be welcomed.

Lorri has been very open to suggestions & outright asked you how you'd resolve some of the issues you see with the categories. She's also told you that there are certain priorities that she isn't willing to budge on, which is more than fair.

It's not that your input isn't heard, it's that in this case it won't change anything because your priorities are different than those of the promoter. It happens, but that doesn't mean people aren't listening.

bunny wrote: I would rather have fewer races I can do but in my own category, than race 3 times a day with the entire women's field.

I completely agree with this. And I wish more promoters would take note. In a given weekend, why can't one race promote a W3 and another race promote a W4? I'm positive you would see larger field sizes for both races.

djconnel wrote: Every race doesn't need to include every category: there's enough events to choose from in the 9-month season.

Yes!!

That's why I don't complain about the Brisbane races. Even though I like to see every race have at least 2 women's categories, I support wholeheartedly that Tom is giving single category women's races. I would rather have fewer races I can do but in my own category, than race 3 times a day with the entire women's field.

I think Kierin should spend less time yapping and more time organizing his own race. Congratulations and thanks to Lori for doing a great job with her fantastic event. Every race doesn't need to include every category: there's enough events to choose from in the 9-month season.

Well I think the comparison doesn't make sense. Not all men with 10 races immediately upgrade to a 4. And getting the points to go from 4 to 3 or from 3 to 2 is a LOT MORE COMPETITIVE due to field sizes compared to the women's fields. E4 racers having to beat out 94 other guys just to get one point is a lot different (and often takes a lot more time) than a women's 4 racer needing to beat 30 or so ladies to get points.

If there was a women's cat 5 category, you would find, with perhaps a few exceptions, that today's cat 4 category would be the equivalent of a cat 4/5 category.

And, please, try to show women racers a little more respect. Don't belittle them by saying it is easier for them to upgrade when you don't know what you are talking about. Do you really know how long it takes for the average M4 to upgrage vs a W4? I don't but I doubt it's very different. It's not all about field size that makes a race competitive.

And upgrading from a 3 to a 2 is much more difficult in the women's fields, since we often have to place in 1/2/3 races to get the upgrade points.