Elis wrote:Quote: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.
Kieran, you seem to have missed the part where someone mentioned that cat 4 women are more equal to cat 4 men than cat 5 men. You get a lot of women who have been racing for years and who may have decided to be "career 4s" due to lack of training time or other factors, just as you do in the men's ranks. Though both categories are beginner categories, you really cannot compare them as such as the rules for upgrades are so much different (10 races experience vs. the same points system the men use for cat 4 to cat 3 upgrade).
Also, I'm not quite sure why you would continue to push this point when the promoter has given her reasons for choosing the women's categories the way she has, especially when you're obviously not very familiar with women's cycling and what it takes to attract women racers to a race. Maybe you'd like to get involved with organizations that do just this? Feel free to send me a personal message about volunteering with Bay Area Women's Cycling, we can always use some help with our Women's Racing Series.
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.
No I do not have enough time to both race, work as a computer engineer, relax and be active in my other volunteer pursuits. However, that does NOT mean the suggestions I made are irrelevant. 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.
Back to my original point which was purely fiscally related until the one paragraph/sentence read-and-reply folks decided to take the issue to new and unrelated areas.... The promoter has answered as I expected. They don't care about the money.
So like I said before, since money is no object, then carry on.
Quote: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.
Kieran, you seem to have missed the part where someone mentioned that cat 4 women are more equal to cat 4 men than cat 5 men. You get a lot of women who have been racing for years and who may have decided to be "career 4s" due to lack of training time or other factors, just as you do in the men's ranks. Though both categories are beginner categories, you really cannot compare them as such as the rules for upgrades are so much different (10 races experience vs. the same points system the men use for cat 4 to cat 3 upgrade).
Also, I'm not quite sure why you would continue to push this point when the promoter has given her reasons for choosing the women's categories the way she has, especially when you're obviously not very familiar with women's cycling and what it takes to attract women racers to a race. Maybe you'd like to get involved with organizations that do just this? Feel free to send me a personal message about volunteering with Bay Area Women's Cycling, we can always use some help with our Women's Racing Series.
and that is certainly a noteworthy number thats likely come from a lot of volunteer time and hard effort, but like Bunny said before, it's a matter of retention. So I respectfully ask you this:
How many of them are still racing?
-kieran
Keiran, I'm happy to dig a little deeper into the numbers, but off the top of my head I would say at least 75% of these women are still racing, as CAT1 - 4 racers and masters throughout northern CA and on the NRC circuit.
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.
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.
Kieran, I guess I don't follow your method of accounting. We have compressed the schedule this year and the only opportunity for additional income (based on past years) would be if we eliminated the E5s. As you said, we shouldn't do that.
We are not interested in combining the W3 with the W4.
Promoters are limited in the length of their race days. Not only are we limited by daylight (a concern in March), but also by fees that increase once we surpass an 8-hour day.
I'm not all that worried about missed income, Kieran. I hope you won't be either. I appreciate your suggestions and will definitely consider them as I'm developing our schedule for 2010.
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?
and that is certainly a noteworthy number thats likely come from a lot of volunteer time and hard effort, but like Bunny said before, it's a matter of retention. So I respectfully ask you this:
velogirl wrote:Keiran (sorry about the earlier mis-spelling). If you have feedback, I am always listening. In addition to picking the E3s separately this year, tell me what you suggest for next year. I was torn between offering an E3 and an E5 race. I chose to run a P/1/2/3 and an E5 race to offer opportunity to more racers. Yes, and E3 race would generate 50 more racers. Is that the way we should go in 2010? And should I leave the E5 out of the mix? Tell me what you think.
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.
That extra 100 riders at $35 each is $3500 MORE towards the race. The 3s don't care much about prize money, velo promo knows that well, so $200 in prizes spread over 6 places works.
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.
The short selling W3 field can be bolstered with discounted W4s entries to it; ie: W3/4 Adds a bit of field size, gives the stronger W4s a chance to see what a faster pace is like, AND it generates more money. Just don't let the "my first day cycling" or "my 3rd race" 4s into it.
The other issue is the master 3/4 35+. The 35+ E4 would likely sell out on it's own anyway, so there's more rev missed out on.
Anyway, I've raced a bit like many, and I'm sure you see what I'm getting at. My point is that revenue need not be missed out on in order to grow womens cycling. If done properly the extra money could be used in other ways to further the womens part of the sport. Perhaps even lowering entry fees for women at other races, increasing prizes or sponsoring a spec women's field to encourage promoters to run better picked womens fields.
The heart of my criticism is that your missing out on quite a bit of bread in it's current format.
However, if $$$ is of no object, then by all means carry on.
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?
Kieran, a W3 and an E4 are nothing alike. To become an E4, you simply have to start 10 races as an E5. To become a W3, you have to earn points based on performance in races. In that same respect W4 and E5 are completely different animals, as there are many career W4s who are skilled racers but lack the fitness or desire or time to upgrade to W3.
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.
bunny wrote:listen, i am replying to your last comment because you asked a question and i appreciate that you are trying to learn about something that you don't know much about
a women's 3/4 race is nothing like a womens 3s race. women's 3/4 races mix women who are doing their first crit with very experienced racers and is something that most 3s as well as most 4s dislike. as a result, most women 3/4 fields are no bigger than a 4s field would be. there are a lot of 4s who are very strong, stronger than some 3s, but very inexperienced on the bike. it's the equivalent of a 3/4/5 race in the men's.
but i will not discuss this any further if you are going to start throwing sticks and stones
Hmm interesting. So W3 are *very* experienced... I thought W3 were the equivalent of E4s? Not sure I see the Men 3/4/5 equivalent either.... that's 3 categories versus 2.... First race (or 3 race) W4s could be limited to the W4 field too btw...
Still don't care to comment on the other suggestions for growing women's cycling? I can hold a decent conversation and address the points the other person makes. How about doing the same?
What about more prize money and less entry fees?
What about using the money from properly filled men's fields to run fee womens clinics or grow womens purses at other races?
I hate to say it, but if having a W3 ONLY field is the grand solution to growing womens cycling.... then there isn't much hope as the results surely do not show it. Maybe it's time to tack the "growing women's cycling" ship a bit and try different avenues.
Keiran (sorry about the earlier mis-spelling). If you have feedback, I am always listening. In addition to picking the E3s separately this year, tell me what you suggest for next year. I was torn between offering an E3 and an E5 race. I chose to run a P/1/2/3 and an E5 race to offer opportunity to more racers. Yes, and E3 race would generate 50 more racers. Is that the way we should go in 2010? And should I leave the E5 out of the mix? Tell me what you think.
Wow! How exciting that the Tri-Flow Menlo Park Grand Prix (presented by Hawk Relay) is receiving so much attention today.
Here's some FYI for Kieren and all you curious racers:
For the past two years we have sold out every field at Menlo Park with the exception of the Women's 3. We have continually listened to feedback and created field combinations based on what we hear (in email, this forum, at races, etc). We actually changed our masters men's races this year based on the fact that so many masters men are not interested in racing with the CAT5s (which also limits the field size).
Our commitment is to providing single-category racing for the lower-category women's fields. There are very few W4 and even fewer W3 races, so our goal is to provide that opportunity for the women in the district. The addition of the Elite men and women's fields this year is because we are no long in conflict with NRC racing.
Yes, the city of Menlo Park has levied an additional $7,000 of expenses for us this year. I was about ready to give up on this race, but was able to secure a very generous cash sponsor (Robin Horwitz of Hawk Relay Cycling) to help underwrite a good portion of that expense.
The entry fee increased from $30 to $35 this year. That increase reflects an additional $1 of USA Cycling surcharge. It also includes the processing fees for SBO which in the past had been added to the registration fee. All in all, it's a wash for racers. It's not costing you any more to race at Menlo Park than it has in the past.
Kieren, I'm not sure why you're critical of my field choices. Are you an E3? Then you have the opportunity to race with the E1/2. And if it's that important to you, I will pick the E3s separately for an additional podium and additional prizes. Would you or your team have any interest in helping me fund that with a small cash sponsorship? If so, email me at Lorri@velogirls.com.
Thanks for your interest everyone, and I look forward to providing you with a most excellent racing opportunity on March 8th.
listen, i am replying to your last comment because you asked a question and i appreciate that you are trying to learn about something that you don't know much about
a women's 3/4 race is nothing like a womens 3s race. women's 3/4 races mix women who are doing their first crit with very experienced racers and is something that most 3s as well as most 4s dislike. as a result, most women 3/4 fields are no bigger than a 4s field would be. there are a lot of 4s who are very strong, stronger than some 3s, but very inexperienced on the bike. it's the equivalent of a 3/4/5 race in the men's.
but i will not discuss this any further if you are going to start throwing sticks and stones
bunny wrote:Seems like more time in the saddle racing would do a lot of good
I don't think your're listening to what I'm saying. Or maybe you are listening and don't get it or don't care. None of your suggestions give the women's 3s their own race. This is one of perhaps 2 other cat 3 crits all year.
One argument that has often been given to women racers when they complain about the fields is that they should put on their own race if they want it done their way. So we did. (Or Velogirls did).
So complain about a different race.
Hmm, some narrow minded thinking here. I'm sorry you're feeling that way. Of course you do realize it's this exact close mindedness that leads to women's fields being run the way they are currently run at other races right?
You could try opening your mind and exploring some of the (many) options I've suggested instead of narrowly focusing on the ONE issue that you've already proved to be way larger than the area can accommodate, the W3s race. Actually, just about all the suggestions I've made would grow womens cycling better than a near empty W3s field that loses money. Perhaps you care to comment on a few of them from above?
So how is a W3/4 race not the same as a W3 race? The 4s that aren't fast will be dropped or tail-gunning it anyway, so the 3s essentially have their own race... and the 4s that keep up or place should be 3's anyway right?
There are a lot of 4s, and they have their own race. So what am I missing here?
Seems like more time in the saddle racing would do a lot of good
I don't think your're listening to what I'm saying. Or maybe you are listening and don't get it or don't care. None of your suggestions give the women's 3s their own race. This is one of perhaps 2 other cat 3 crits all year.
One argument that has often been given to women racers when they complain about the fields is that they should put on their own race if they want it done their way. So we did. (Or Velogirls did).
Mad Axeman wrote:Other than I and many others highly disagree on the Masters 4s being mixed with any 5s, I really don't see the issue here.
I think it's cool that the Women get to own a race and dictate how it works.
The only other race that caters to Women in this degree is Kern.
My guess is it won't matter how many people show up, it's probably a loss considering the fees involved.
One other thing: You are beating a dead horse in recommending how fields should be run after the race flyer is published.
My understanding is that once the race flyer is approved, there is no changing it.
that's a catch 22 isn't it? Since I don't know what the fields are until it's published, I can only comment on what I know.... come on! Obviously the recommendation is for the future. :roll:
Other than I and many others highly disagree on the Masters 4s being mixed with any 5s, I really don't see the issue here.
I think it's cool that the Women get to own a race and dictate how it works.
The only other race that caters to Women in this degree is Kern.
My guess is it won't matter how many people show up, it's probably a loss considering the fees involved.
One other thing: You are beating a dead horse in recommending how fields should be run after the race flyer is published.
My understanding is that once the race flyer is approved, there is no changing it.
another thing that comes to mind while I'm chewing on this "We're trying to grow womens cycling thing"
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!
But, please, please, don't miss the opportunity to collect money from mens races to further your cause. That's just shooting yourself in the foot!
Women can always race the elite races too. So at any race, women typically have the opportunity to race twice (unlike men 18-34). Heck if a woman is over 35, she can race with the experienced (35+) elites too.
bunny wrote:the only women who can race twice will be the women's 3s and that is probably just to try to make some money as a women's 1/2 field would likely be quite small, which is a far cry from "most" women being able to race twice
Well the format I suggested:
W 4
W 2/3
W P/1/2/3
Gives all W3 and W2 2 opportunities to race....
bunny wrote:
there are lots of women in the cat 4s--more than twice the number registered as cat 3s which is a much steeper slope than in the men's fields.
a big part of the problem, in my opinion, in women's racing is not that women aren't starting to race, but that they aren't staying in racing.
once you upgrade from a 4 to a 3, almost every crit you do is with the 1/2 field. from a 4 to racing with the 1s is a ridiculously huge jump. so a lot of women either don't upgrade and stay a 4 until they've had enough of it, or upgrade to a 3 and eventually get frustrated and leave.
Ok, fair enough. Then how about this:
W4,
W 3/4
W 1/2/3
If most women are 4s and 3s, then they are the ones that get more time to race. The slower 4s can stick with the 4's field, the faster ones with the 3/4. Same with the 3's, slower in the 3/4, faster 1/2/3. Seems like more time in the saddle racing would do a lot of good. For time worries, the W4's race could be shortened to 30min, and Mens 5 shortened to 30.
If the race were run in a way to make more money, you could also throw more $$$ prizes at the women's fields too with the extra from running a proper/profitable combination of men's fields. Or perhaps use the excess to throw into purses for women's fields at other races....
There's always a way to do it AND make money......
There's no need to take a vow of poverty to grow women's cycling.
the only women who can race twice will be the women's 3s and that is probably just to try to make some money as a women's 1/2 field would likely be quite small, which is a far cry from "most" women being able to race twice
there are lots of women in the cat 4s--more than twice the number registered as cat 3s which is a much steeper slope than in the men's fields.
a big part of the problem, in my opinion, in women's racing is not that women aren't starting to race, but that they aren't staying in racing.
once you upgrade from a 4 to a 3, almost every crit you do is with the 1/2 field. from a 4 to racing with the 1s is a ridiculously huge jump. so a lot of women either don't upgrade and stay a 4 until they've had enough of it, or upgrade to a 3 and eventually get frustrated and leave.
that's not everyone, of course. but adding more cat 3 women's fields is an important part of growing women's cycling. we are doing a pretty decent job of getting women to try the sport. we need to work on making it worth their while to stay in it.
bunny wrote:i'm sure velogirl will reply to this, and she can correct me if i'm wrong
but my guess is that the reason this race is $35 this year is to cover the exorbitant fees the city of menlo park added this year
and there is NO WAY the W3 race will have 100 racers as there are only about 150 registered cat 3 women in our entire district. that would be the equivalent of over 400 cat 3 men showing up to a race.
veloGIRLs is putting on this race, which means they are supporting women's cycling in the way that they feel is best, not necessarily the way they feel they will make the most money
well it's pretty obvious they don't care about the money....that was my point.
bunny wrote:
this race is trying to make sure that all women racers have 1 race with their competitive peers, not trying to be sure that every man out there can do 2 races that day
Well if you look at the suggested format, most of the women get 2 opportunities to race too....so it's not just the men.
bunny wrote:
this is what we need to grow the sport of women's bike racing
and i applaud lorri lee and velogirls for making the choices they have with this race!
Not sure I follow here, and much less agree. If I were trying to GROW the sport of women's cycling I would try to generate as much MONEY as possible with an event like this and use that MONEY to fund FREE women's only training events, and junior women's outreach events. I think in the long run the extra MONEY generated to support women's specific events would go further than running near empty fields at races.
For that matter, how is women's cycling held back with current formats? Have there been women's races selling out regularly with long waiting lists? If there have been I guess I'm the last to know.....
If anything the men's cycling in the bay area is being harshly held back by quickly selling out fields and long waiting lists. Especially for the E5s, E4s, M5s, and M4s. If anything getting more of those guys out to the races will make more money, and perhaps if more of them are unrestricted in their access to the sport they might bring MORE of their daughters/wives/sigOthers/sisters/etc in too!
i'm sure velogirl will reply to this, and she can correct me if i'm wrong
but my guess is that the reason this race is $35 this year is to cover the exorbitant fees the city of menlo park added this year
and there is NO WAY the W3 race will have 100 racers as there are only about 150 registered cat 3 women in our entire district. that would be the equivalent of over 400 cat 3 men showing up to a race.
veloGIRLs is putting on this race, which means they are supporting women's cycling in the way that they feel is best, not necessarily the way they feel they will make the most money
this race is trying to make sure that all women racers have 1 race with their competitive peers, not trying to be sure that every man out there can do 2 races that day
this is what we need to grow the sport of women's bike racing
and i applaud lorri lee and velogirls for making the choices they have with this race!
and, of course, we could mention the creative selection of fields at Napa:
Elite Cat. 4 40 min 75 $200 5 $27
8:50 am Elite Cat. 3 45 min 75 $300 5 $27
9:45 am Master 35+ Cat. 4 40 min 75 $200 5 $27
10:35 am Master 35+ Cat. 1/2/3 50 min 100 $400 5 $27
11:35 am Kids’ Races none Prizes All --
12:15 pm Master 45+&55+ Cat. 1/2/3 * 45 min 100 $300/$100 5/3 $27
1:10 pm Womens’ 2/3 * 45 min 75 $250/$200 3/3 $27
2:05 pm Mstr35+ Cat.1/2 ReverseWin&Out** 50 min 50 $400 5 $27
3:05 pm Master 35+ Cat.3 45 min 100 $300 5 $27
4:00 pm Elite Pro/1/2 60 min 100 $1000 10 $27
Lorri Lee Lown
http://www.velogirls.com
let's take a look at say brisbane's fields
P1/2, E 3, E 4, E 5, 35+ 1/2/3, 35+ 4, 45+ 3/4, W 3
under 35 you get one shot at it, but if you are a 45+ 3 or 4 you get a full day. no junior races and only one women's race.
Elis wrote:Quote: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.
Kieran, you seem to have missed the part where someone mentioned that cat 4 women are more equal to cat 4 men than cat 5 men. You get a lot of women who have been racing for years and who may have decided to be "career 4s" due to lack of training time or other factors, just as you do in the men's ranks. Though both categories are beginner categories, you really cannot compare them as such as the rules for upgrades are so much different (10 races experience vs. the same points system the men use for cat 4 to cat 3 upgrade).
Also, I'm not quite sure why you would continue to push this point when the promoter has given her reasons for choosing the women's categories the way she has, especially when you're obviously not very familiar with women's cycling and what it takes to attract women racers to a race. Maybe you'd like to get involved with organizations that do just this? Feel free to send me a personal message about volunteering with Bay Area Women's Cycling, we can always use some help with our Women's Racing Series.
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.
No I do not have enough time to both race, work as a computer engineer, relax and be active in my other volunteer pursuits. However, that does NOT mean the suggestions I made are irrelevant. 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.
Back to my original point which was purely fiscally related until the one paragraph/sentence read-and-reply folks decided to take the issue to new and unrelated areas.... The promoter has answered as I expected. They don't care about the money.
So like I said before, since money is no object, then carry on.
-kieran
Quote: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.
Kieran, you seem to have missed the part where someone mentioned that cat 4 women are more equal to cat 4 men than cat 5 men. You get a lot of women who have been racing for years and who may have decided to be "career 4s" due to lack of training time or other factors, just as you do in the men's ranks. Though both categories are beginner categories, you really cannot compare them as such as the rules for upgrades are so much different (10 races experience vs. the same points system the men use for cat 4 to cat 3 upgrade).
Also, I'm not quite sure why you would continue to push this point when the promoter has given her reasons for choosing the women's categories the way she has, especially when you're obviously not very familiar with women's cycling and what it takes to attract women racers to a race. Maybe you'd like to get involved with organizations that do just this? Feel free to send me a personal message about volunteering with Bay Area Women's Cycling, we can always use some help with our Women's Racing Series.
You guys do know the holiday is next Monday, not tomorrow.
Kieran,
i told you to hurry up and have a few more birthdays so you race with the old guys :-)
kcox920 wrote:
and that is certainly a noteworthy number thats likely come from a lot of volunteer time and hard effort, but like Bunny said before, it's a matter of retention. So I respectfully ask you this:
How many of them are still racing?
-kieran
Keiran, I'm happy to dig a little deeper into the numbers, but off the top of my head I would say at least 75% of these women are still racing, as CAT1 - 4 racers and masters throughout northern CA and on the NRC circuit.
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.
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.
Lorri Lee Lown
http://www.velogirls.com
Kieran, I guess I don't follow your method of accounting. We have compressed the schedule this year and the only opportunity for additional income (based on past years) would be if we eliminated the E5s. As you said, we shouldn't do that.
We are not interested in combining the W3 with the W4.
Promoters are limited in the length of their race days. Not only are we limited by daylight (a concern in March), but also by fees that increase once we surpass an 8-hour day.
I'm not all that worried about missed income, Kieran. I hope you won't be either. I appreciate your suggestions and will definitely consider them as I'm developing our schedule for 2010.
Lorri Lee Lown
http://www.velogirls.com
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?
and that is certainly a noteworthy number thats likely come from a lot of volunteer time and hard effort, but like Bunny said before, it's a matter of retention. So I respectfully ask you this:
How many of them are still racing?
-kieran
velogirl wrote:Keiran (sorry about the earlier mis-spelling). If you have feedback, I am always listening. In addition to picking the E3s separately this year, tell me what you suggest for next year. I was torn between offering an E3 and an E5 race. I chose to run a P/1/2/3 and an E5 race to offer opportunity to more racers. Yes, and E3 race would generate 50 more racers. Is that the way we should go in 2010? And should I leave the E5 out of the mix? Tell me what you think.
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.
That extra 100 riders at $35 each is $3500 MORE towards the race. The 3s don't care much about prize money, velo promo knows that well, so $200 in prizes spread over 6 places works.
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.
The short selling W3 field can be bolstered with discounted W4s entries to it; ie: W3/4 Adds a bit of field size, gives the stronger W4s a chance to see what a faster pace is like, AND it generates more money. Just don't let the "my first day cycling" or "my 3rd race" 4s into it.
The other issue is the master 3/4 35+. The 35+ E4 would likely sell out on it's own anyway, so there's more rev missed out on.
Anyway, I've raced a bit like many, and I'm sure you see what I'm getting at. My point is that revenue need not be missed out on in order to grow womens cycling. If done properly the extra money could be used in other ways to further the womens part of the sport. Perhaps even lowering entry fees for women at other races, increasing prizes or sponsoring a spec women's field to encourage promoters to run better picked womens fields.
The heart of my criticism is that your missing out on quite a bit of bread in it's current format.
However, if $$$ is of no object, then by all means carry on.
-kieran
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?
Lorri Lee Lown
http://www.velogirls.com
Kieran, a W3 and an E4 are nothing alike. To become an E4, you simply have to start 10 races as an E5. To become a W3, you have to earn points based on performance in races. In that same respect W4 and E5 are completely different animals, as there are many career W4s who are skilled racers but lack the fitness or desire or time to upgrade to W3.
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.
Lorri Lee Lown
http://www.velogirls.com
bunny wrote:listen, i am replying to your last comment because you asked a question and i appreciate that you are trying to learn about something that you don't know much about
a women's 3/4 race is nothing like a womens 3s race. women's 3/4 races mix women who are doing their first crit with very experienced racers and is something that most 3s as well as most 4s dislike. as a result, most women 3/4 fields are no bigger than a 4s field would be. there are a lot of 4s who are very strong, stronger than some 3s, but very inexperienced on the bike. it's the equivalent of a 3/4/5 race in the men's.
but i will not discuss this any further if you are going to start throwing sticks and stones
Hmm interesting. So W3 are *very* experienced... I thought W3 were the equivalent of E4s? Not sure I see the Men 3/4/5 equivalent either.... that's 3 categories versus 2.... First race (or 3 race) W4s could be limited to the W4 field too btw...
Still don't care to comment on the other suggestions for growing women's cycling? I can hold a decent conversation and address the points the other person makes. How about doing the same?
What about more prize money and less entry fees?
What about using the money from properly filled men's fields to run fee womens clinics or grow womens purses at other races?
I hate to say it, but if having a W3 ONLY field is the grand solution to growing womens cycling.... then there isn't much hope as the results surely do not show it. Maybe it's time to tack the "growing women's cycling" ship a bit and try different avenues.
-kieran
Keiran (sorry about the earlier mis-spelling). If you have feedback, I am always listening. In addition to picking the E3s separately this year, tell me what you suggest for next year. I was torn between offering an E3 and an E5 race. I chose to run a P/1/2/3 and an E5 race to offer opportunity to more racers. Yes, and E3 race would generate 50 more racers. Is that the way we should go in 2010? And should I leave the E5 out of the mix? Tell me what you think.
Lorri Lee Lown
http://www.velogirls.com
Wow! How exciting that the Tri-Flow Menlo Park Grand Prix (presented by Hawk Relay) is receiving so much attention today.
Here's some FYI for Kieren and all you curious racers:
For the past two years we have sold out every field at Menlo Park with the exception of the Women's 3. We have continually listened to feedback and created field combinations based on what we hear (in email, this forum, at races, etc). We actually changed our masters men's races this year based on the fact that so many masters men are not interested in racing with the CAT5s (which also limits the field size).
Our commitment is to providing single-category racing for the lower-category women's fields. There are very few W4 and even fewer W3 races, so our goal is to provide that opportunity for the women in the district. The addition of the Elite men and women's fields this year is because we are no long in conflict with NRC racing.
Yes, the city of Menlo Park has levied an additional $7,000 of expenses for us this year. I was about ready to give up on this race, but was able to secure a very generous cash sponsor (Robin Horwitz of Hawk Relay Cycling) to help underwrite a good portion of that expense.
The entry fee increased from $30 to $35 this year. That increase reflects an additional $1 of USA Cycling surcharge. It also includes the processing fees for SBO which in the past had been added to the registration fee. All in all, it's a wash for racers. It's not costing you any more to race at Menlo Park than it has in the past.
Kieren, I'm not sure why you're critical of my field choices. Are you an E3? Then you have the opportunity to race with the E1/2. And if it's that important to you, I will pick the E3s separately for an additional podium and additional prizes. Would you or your team have any interest in helping me fund that with a small cash sponsorship? If so, email me at Lorri@velogirls.com.
Thanks for your interest everyone, and I look forward to providing you with a most excellent racing opportunity on March 8th.
Lorri
Lorri Lee Lown
http://www.velogirls.com
listen, i am replying to your last comment because you asked a question and i appreciate that you are trying to learn about something that you don't know much about
a women's 3/4 race is nothing like a womens 3s race. women's 3/4 races mix women who are doing their first crit with very experienced racers and is something that most 3s as well as most 4s dislike. as a result, most women 3/4 fields are no bigger than a 4s field would be. there are a lot of 4s who are very strong, stronger than some 3s, but very inexperienced on the bike. it's the equivalent of a 3/4/5 race in the men's.
but i will not discuss this any further if you are going to start throwing sticks and stones
bunny wrote:Seems like more time in the saddle racing would do a lot of good
I don't think your're listening to what I'm saying. Or maybe you are listening and don't get it or don't care. None of your suggestions give the women's 3s their own race. This is one of perhaps 2 other cat 3 crits all year.
One argument that has often been given to women racers when they complain about the fields is that they should put on their own race if they want it done their way. So we did. (Or Velogirls did).
So complain about a different race.
Hmm, some narrow minded thinking here. I'm sorry you're feeling that way. Of course you do realize it's this exact close mindedness that leads to women's fields being run the way they are currently run at other races right?
You could try opening your mind and exploring some of the (many) options I've suggested instead of narrowly focusing on the ONE issue that you've already proved to be way larger than the area can accommodate, the W3s race. Actually, just about all the suggestions I've made would grow womens cycling better than a near empty W3s field that loses money. Perhaps you care to comment on a few of them from above?
So how is a W3/4 race not the same as a W3 race? The 4s that aren't fast will be dropped or tail-gunning it anyway, so the 3s essentially have their own race... and the 4s that keep up or place should be 3's anyway right?
There are a lot of 4s, and they have their own race. So what am I missing here?
-kieran
Seems like more time in the saddle racing would do a lot of good
I don't think your're listening to what I'm saying. Or maybe you are listening and don't get it or don't care. None of your suggestions give the women's 3s their own race. This is one of perhaps 2 other cat 3 crits all year.
One argument that has often been given to women racers when they complain about the fields is that they should put on their own race if they want it done their way. So we did. (Or Velogirls did).
So complain about a different race.
Mad Axeman wrote:Other than I and many others highly disagree on the Masters 4s being mixed with any 5s, I really don't see the issue here.
I think it's cool that the Women get to own a race and dictate how it works.
The only other race that caters to Women in this degree is Kern.
My guess is it won't matter how many people show up, it's probably a loss considering the fees involved.
One other thing: You are beating a dead horse in recommending how fields should be run after the race flyer is published.
My understanding is that once the race flyer is approved, there is no changing it.
that's a catch 22 isn't it? Since I don't know what the fields are until it's published, I can only comment on what I know.... come on! Obviously the recommendation is for the future. :roll:
-kieran
Other than I and many others highly disagree on the Masters 4s being mixed with any 5s, I really don't see the issue here.
I think it's cool that the Women get to own a race and dictate how it works.
The only other race that caters to Women in this degree is Kern.
My guess is it won't matter how many people show up, it's probably a loss considering the fees involved.
One other thing: You are beating a dead horse in recommending how fields should be run after the race flyer is published.
My understanding is that once the race flyer is approved, there is no changing it.
another thing that comes to mind while I'm chewing on this "We're trying to grow womens cycling thing"
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!
But, please, please, don't miss the opportunity to collect money from mens races to further your cause. That's just shooting yourself in the foot!
cheers,
-kieran
Women can always race the elite races too. So at any race, women typically have the opportunity to race twice (unlike men 18-34). Heck if a woman is over 35, she can race with the experienced (35+) elites too.
Reverend Dr. Jay
bunny wrote:the only women who can race twice will be the women's 3s and that is probably just to try to make some money as a women's 1/2 field would likely be quite small, which is a far cry from "most" women being able to race twice
Well the format I suggested:
W 4
W 2/3
W P/1/2/3
Gives all W3 and W2 2 opportunities to race....
bunny wrote:
there are lots of women in the cat 4s--more than twice the number registered as cat 3s which is a much steeper slope than in the men's fields.
a big part of the problem, in my opinion, in women's racing is not that women aren't starting to race, but that they aren't staying in racing.
once you upgrade from a 4 to a 3, almost every crit you do is with the 1/2 field. from a 4 to racing with the 1s is a ridiculously huge jump. so a lot of women either don't upgrade and stay a 4 until they've had enough of it, or upgrade to a 3 and eventually get frustrated and leave.
Ok, fair enough. Then how about this:
W4,
W 3/4
W 1/2/3
If most women are 4s and 3s, then they are the ones that get more time to race. The slower 4s can stick with the 4's field, the faster ones with the 3/4. Same with the 3's, slower in the 3/4, faster 1/2/3. Seems like more time in the saddle racing would do a lot of good. For time worries, the W4's race could be shortened to 30min, and Mens 5 shortened to 30.
If the race were run in a way to make more money, you could also throw more $$$ prizes at the women's fields too with the extra from running a proper/profitable combination of men's fields. Or perhaps use the excess to throw into purses for women's fields at other races....
There's always a way to do it AND make money......
There's no need to take a vow of poverty to grow women's cycling.
-kieran
the only women who can race twice will be the women's 3s and that is probably just to try to make some money as a women's 1/2 field would likely be quite small, which is a far cry from "most" women being able to race twice
there are lots of women in the cat 4s--more than twice the number registered as cat 3s which is a much steeper slope than in the men's fields.
a big part of the problem, in my opinion, in women's racing is not that women aren't starting to race, but that they aren't staying in racing.
once you upgrade from a 4 to a 3, almost every crit you do is with the 1/2 field. from a 4 to racing with the 1s is a ridiculously huge jump. so a lot of women either don't upgrade and stay a 4 until they've had enough of it, or upgrade to a 3 and eventually get frustrated and leave.
that's not everyone, of course. but adding more cat 3 women's fields is an important part of growing women's cycling. we are doing a pretty decent job of getting women to try the sport. we need to work on making it worth their while to stay in it.
bunny wrote:i'm sure velogirl will reply to this, and she can correct me if i'm wrong
but my guess is that the reason this race is $35 this year is to cover the exorbitant fees the city of menlo park added this year
and there is NO WAY the W3 race will have 100 racers as there are only about 150 registered cat 3 women in our entire district. that would be the equivalent of over 400 cat 3 men showing up to a race.
veloGIRLs is putting on this race, which means they are supporting women's cycling in the way that they feel is best, not necessarily the way they feel they will make the most money
well it's pretty obvious they don't care about the money....that was my point.
bunny wrote:
this race is trying to make sure that all women racers have 1 race with their competitive peers, not trying to be sure that every man out there can do 2 races that day
Well if you look at the suggested format, most of the women get 2 opportunities to race too....so it's not just the men.
bunny wrote:
this is what we need to grow the sport of women's bike racing
and i applaud lorri lee and velogirls for making the choices they have with this race!
Not sure I follow here, and much less agree. If I were trying to GROW the sport of women's cycling I would try to generate as much MONEY as possible with an event like this and use that MONEY to fund FREE women's only training events, and junior women's outreach events. I think in the long run the extra MONEY generated to support women's specific events would go further than running near empty fields at races.
For that matter, how is women's cycling held back with current formats? Have there been women's races selling out regularly with long waiting lists? If there have been I guess I'm the last to know.....
If anything the men's cycling in the bay area is being harshly held back by quickly selling out fields and long waiting lists. Especially for the E5s, E4s, M5s, and M4s. If anything getting more of those guys out to the races will make more money, and perhaps if more of them are unrestricted in their access to the sport they might bring MORE of their daughters/wives/sigOthers/sisters/etc in too!
cheers,
-kieran
i'm sure velogirl will reply to this, and she can correct me if i'm wrong
but my guess is that the reason this race is $35 this year is to cover the exorbitant fees the city of menlo park added this year
and there is NO WAY the W3 race will have 100 racers as there are only about 150 registered cat 3 women in our entire district. that would be the equivalent of over 400 cat 3 men showing up to a race.
veloGIRLs is putting on this race, which means they are supporting women's cycling in the way that they feel is best, not necessarily the way they feel they will make the most money
this race is trying to make sure that all women racers have 1 race with their competitive peers, not trying to be sure that every man out there can do 2 races that day
this is what we need to grow the sport of women's bike racing
and i applaud lorri lee and velogirls for making the choices they have with this race!