when i have talked to the promoter in the past, it was clear that adding a new field wasn't an option

although he was very willing to look at other potential changes

A complementary assumption on my part. My apologies then, and my gratitude to you both.

I do have to point out that I am Tom Simonson, the official, results guy etc. and not Tom Simpson the race organizer - so while I like to think that I listen to riders and try to make things better, the praise for responsiveness goes to Mr Simpson.

Tom is right on the mark. We should trust that the person(s) running and organizing the race have made the right decision for that particular venue allowing for time constraints and rider safety.
Also the riders might help by offering suggestions that fit the schedule to the promoters for the next running of the race. If you don't like the changes or lack of change, don't go to it the the next year and let them know why you didn't attend. Believe me, they do listen to your CONSTRUCTIVE ideas. To his credit, Tom has always listened and made quite a few changes to the races he has run over the years, which is why so many of us enjoy his events.
So- petition the promoter for what you want in the races you'd like to change. Or promote or help with a race so you understand the effort involved. Add another lap or put hills in it if you'd like to trouble the sprinters, or make a flat short race if you are a sprinter.
GET INVOLVED if you want a change!
If you'd like more of a challenge because you're such a tough guy, go do some mountain bike races. They're much harder than road races or crits, and they rarely end in sprint.

Thanks for the detailed answer Tom!

The nature of the 45+ and 55+ races has changed quite a bit in the last few years, and I suspect that the organizers have not been following it. However, one can always make the argument that for an early-season race, 48 miles is as reasonable as 72 - it's just a relatively short, easy race. Also consider the very real chance of bad weather - if it's cold and wet I think that a lot of riders would appreciate not being out there for another hour.

I'm no longer involved in the detailed planning of the race, but I spent a number of years as Chief Ref for the event, and helped to refine the schedule. You might recall that we had tremendous problems with groups catching, and particular problems with the lower category women field during the period when we had one wave of starts - that field went much slower, and we had a bunch of fields crammed onto the course.

The approach that we went to was to have a partial second wave, that is fed in after the pro men see 2 to go and the cat.2 field gets the bell (if there is a cat.2 race). This only adds about 20 minutes or so to the length of the race day. The length of the road closure *is* an issue, so I suspect that it is not feasible to run a 3-lap race in the second wave. This means that the masters would have to move to the first wave of starts.

In the current setup there are two 2-lap finishes, then three 3-lap finishes in the first wave. Transforming it into one 2-lap finish and then four 3-lap finishes would increase the chance of groups mixing late in the race, and would also potentially bog down the flow of results - which seemed to be quite good this year (as opposed to a few years ago).

An additional possible problem, depending on how fast the pro field goes and how slow the 45's go, is that there is a potential for wrap-around lapping by the pro field. Currently the last two fields in the first wave are off the course after two laps. If one is out there for a third lap, there is a small chance that they will be caught. The pro field could have been much deeper, and as it was we caught some 2-lap juniors. There is the potential for a few more pro teams to show up and really kick up the pace.

Please note that I do not speak for the organizers or the head officials for the event - I'm just offering some insights from somebody who is familiar with some of the details of the race.

Let's have a 200K race for hardheads. All categories. Gotta finish with no sag support.

Then there will be a 165K for you century guys. No passing without hand signals. Patches or hat pins for all finishers.

3rdly we could have a 120K for you 3rd lap guys.

Lastly (big gap for senior moment) we could have a 75K for racers fall into at least one of the following categories:

1.) Non-supportive spouse (must provide proof of counseling)
2.) Single parent with a PAID sitter (child cannot be left in car)
3.) Rides steel bike with eyelets for panniers
4.) Attends church regularly (must have note from pastor/rabbi/priest)
5.) No employer paid pension/retirement plan
6.) Buys parts/accessories at full retail from LBS (LBS store sales excluded)

We will not age, race, gender, or category discriminate.

JustForFunCyclingAssociation

I suspect the organizers assume making a road race over 50 miles long for old geezers like us 45+'ers is going to cause a dramatic spike in guys croaking along the course.

ZebraMan wrote:A more straightforward solution:

Limit the field size of the Merco 45+ 1/2/3/4 race to 50-75 riders, then race two waves. Or run a 45+ 1/2 and a 45+ 3/4 race. There are ample opp's for two waves in the afternoon at Merco. And with 2x75 we could help alleviate those prereg problems we saw this year.

Or better yet, we can separate it into weight classes. Say under 160 & over 160 so the skinny guys wouldn't have to sprint against the big gym training body builder types.

May as well just line up the big guys 1K out and have them go at it since it will just come down to a sprint anyway.

And the skinny guys could do 3 laps.

And what of the idea of lengthening the race to three laps?

A more straightforward solution:

Limit the field size of the Merco 45+ 1/2/3/4 race to 50-75 riders, then race two waves. Or run a 45+ 1/2 and a 45+ 3/4 race. There are ample opp's for two waves in the afternoon at Merco. And with 2x75 we could help alleviate those prereg problems we saw this year.

Starting in April a jersey will be sent out for 45+ 4.

BNicely wrote:NCNCA has added a new BAR Category. There is now a 45+ Cat 4 category...

OOooh! Do we get our own jersey with the sandbag flair on the sleeves. Yesssssssss!!! :wink:

---

Let me see if I have this straight.
We should make the road races longer because the sprinters and guys who spend too much time in the gym are beating you guys in the road races?
Why don't we also add a minimum bike/rider weight, lets say 200 pounds, that way your skinny road racing butts won't have an advantage when the grade goes up. Or, imagine this, why don't you guys quit your complaining and just go race?
No matter what your racing category is you will always have squirrels, some of them you can even recognize by the championship stripes on their sleeves.
Point being, THINK when you show up to race! If the category you are racing has 4's included and you're afraid of them, BE AWARE! If the category is larger than you expected, then ADJUST! And if the race isn't long enough for your time spent driving, RIDE FARTHER if you need more of a workout when you're done with the race! Longer races won't weed out the sprinters you idiots, it just fatigues everybody more, possibly leading to more unsafe situations. Betonte wins crits and road races, what are you squealers going to do about him?
THINK about what you are doing, figure out a strategy for the distance and conditions, accept the risk, and quit complaining or just stay home.

My reasoning behind starting this thread was to promote the idea of longer races for the 45's, not to diss the 4's in the race. On the contrary I think it was the more experienced riders that were mostly the cause of the sketchy riding.

I think longer races allow for a little more settling down of the bunch, but mostly I think the caliber of rider now racing the 45's in road races requires the longer distance and those that just spend their time in the gym and not "training" can stick to crits.

I agree. I think longer 45+ 1/2/3 races are safer and more interesting. This is especially true for flatter races.

I hope more promoters will start offering 70-80 mile distances whenever possible. I know I'll be more likely to sign-up for a flat road race of 75 miles than one of 45 miles. I would think someone promoting a newer race, might be able to get better registration numbers by differentiating their road race in this way (Panoche?).

The racers that prefer short, flat races have a lot of crits to choose from already.

Rick M.

I think all of the 45+ races should be longer, and am always amazed they make the 45+ the same length as the 45+4/5's. I would encourage making all of the road races longer, even in the 4/5's, with 70 miles minimum for a flatter course. I'm a Cat4, but appreciate being able to race up and be challenged and get a decent workout on flatter courses. I like a race where the sprinters that sit in the whole race at least have a few hours in their legs at the end, or have serious breakaway threats that could leave them only sprinting for a top 20 finish. Last year at Merco I only averaged 215 watts in the 35+4 at an avg speed of almost 25mph, so this year I raced the 35+4 and the 45+ to get a decent workout for 6 hours of driving!

NCNCA has added a new BAR Category. There is now a 45+ Cat 4 category. The 45+ 1-4 is now 45+ 1-3. First we want to create a competitive category appropriate to skill level and demographics. Second we want to encourage the promotion of fields at races that more closely align with rider ability and skill levels. We will also encourage promoters to provide fields that align with the BAR designation. Thanks to Jim Volsansky for the suggestion and Ken H. And Keith W. For agreeing to take on the extra necessary tasks to make this happen.

I did the Merco pro/1/2 race and the first lap of that was the most nervous, sketchy race that I've done for a while. Lots of full gas followed by locked up brakes. Everybody wanted to get up front. If you weren't moving up, you were moving back. The middle of the race was nice once the break got away, but the end got sketchy again. The topper was a crash mid pack within the final km. I was behind it and my download showed a speed of 46.6 kph and ONE second later 6.2 kph while I did a double power slide and then around the carnage by going off road. The front of that crash was probably gunning for something like 50th place.

I think that the biggest difference is how comfortable you are in that kind of field. In a 35+ or 45+ race I am generally comfortable with whatever is going on. I took my lack of comfort in yesterday's p/1/2 race as my rustiness in riding in that level of a pack with 140 starters. I used to be comfortable in those kinds of races. Maybe I've gotten old and soft, but more likely I'm just not used to it and need to raise my game if I want to feel more comfortable in these kinds of races.

And really I think that the size of the field is a big part of it. You get used to riding in fields of 40-60 people where there is plenty of room to move around. When the field size more than doubles... Not so comfy.

It made me think about something like the Tour de France. I can't imagine how nerve racking that first flat week must be with SO much on the line.

Kevin Metcalfe

Gentleman,

I have been following your discussion with interest and feel the need to comment. First, let me state that I am a Cat 4 (@ 55 years old) and have been racing since 2004. I’m not sure there’s anything broken here that requires fixing. Those of us who have been around awhile know the ropes and race accordingly. My feeling is most new Cat 4s of our age tend to avoid the 45/55+ open races because they feel the disparity in talent, fitness, race knowledge, etc , is too great. I know I felt that way. I don’t think there’s any evidence to support the idea that there’s enough Cat 4s numberswise in a 45/55+ race to make it unsafe.

Since I like challenges, I finally began to race the 45+ open races. I found out a couple of things very quickly. First, the 45+ races tend to be fast. This strings things out, inherently making the race safer. Second, one better be ready to withstand the accelerations, or you are going out the back. Most new Cat 4s don’t have the fitness to hang or the pack skills to sit on, so they do go out the back. Once there, they are no longer an issue.

I personally would not like to see the Cat 4s pushed out of the M45/55+ fields. However, I’m not stupid and realize that there are racers who perceive that those of lower categories are less skilled and therefore more dangerous. While that may be true to a point, I’ve also seen some sketchy riding by those you would think should know better. No matter what the racer’s category, I think it just ultimately comes down to decisions made by an individual in course of any given race. Sometimes stupid ones get made and people crash as a result.

In regard to the discussion about promoting M45/55+ 4/5 races, I am not in favor of that. If the 4s must absolutely be booted from the 45/55+ open races, I believe a 3/4 grouping would be more appropriate than a 4/5. This is in line with the sentiment that a 5 is a 5 is a 5 and they should all race together. That should provide sufficient motivation to upgrade. I do think the fields should be expanded to 75 on the more courses as the limited field size of 50 could prove to be a pinch point for those wishing to upgrade. But I begin to digress and so will wrap up.

Thanks for your time,

Phil Heiman
Colavita Racing-Norcal

Guys, not to make an issue of it, but the Merco races don't allow any 5's (except maybe Junior 5s). So any lower category field would have been a 4 or 3/4, not 4/5.

And the M35+ 1/2/3 and the M45+ 1/2/3/4's and the M35+ 4's all had waiting lists and full starting fields. I do not know how many waitlisted folks were able to start, if any.

Eric,

I agree on the experience versus non-experince issue and trust factor. I did a number of 45+ 123 races last year and then jumped into a 45 3/4/5 field and didn't make the transition in my head. I did something I wouldn't hesitate to do in a 1/2/3 field and ended up with cracked ribs, road rash, a broken carbon wheel and a cracked Cervelo! I prefer 1/2/3 fields but conclude it is the mix of skills and expectations that cause issues. Does that make sense?

I agree with the 45+ 4/5 fields. 480 Cat 4's over 45 and 500 Cat 5's over 45 suggest this is a natural progression for NCNCA. I imagine both groups would be happy. The Board of Directors is making an announcement supportive of that distinction tonight.

Cheers,
Bill

Bill,

It was not my intention to blame anybody. I agree that bike handling skills and comfort riding in a group are not defined only by category. The combination of inexperienced riders and experienced riders causes problems that are not necessarily the fault of either group. There are just different levels of comfort with proximity, contact and speed. These differences can be very pronounces when you get to the Masters categories (people that have been racing for more years than they can remember mixed with people that are new to the sport) and cause problems.

BTW, I fully support more Masters 45+ 4/5 races. I believe the demographics of the riders in our district show this is one of the fastest growing groups.

Eric

Eric,

The ten Cat 4's in a field of nearly one hundred was the issue? I was in the 45+ 1/2/3 at Snelling and there was squirrely riding there from a couple of Cat 2's. The one incident at Merco that took out the reigning champ, Gregg Betonte, was involving a Cat 3 (there were 50 of them in the race).

If promoters can find the room for a separate field for the 45+ 4's, by all means give them their own race. I just don't think you can put this on the Cat 4's.

Bill

That's a good suggestion (to make another 3 lap race with a little less change to status quo)! (edit()).

I agree that a third lap would make the 45+ race more interesting, particularly on days like yesterday when the wind is not strong enough to be a real factor. Making it a 1,2,3 field instead of a 1,2,3,4 field would make a big difference on safety. The combination of very experienced riders who are comfortable in tight packs and relatively inexperienced riders is a recipe for problems on a non-selective course. Given that the field filled and there was a waiting list, I suspect you could fill 45+ 1-3 field.

There are some two lap races in the first wave. Shifting one of them to the second wave and putting a three lap 45+ race in the first wave would leave the total road closure time unchanged. In fairness, I don't have any idea how that change would impact the course dynamics (overlapping fields, mixed groups at the finish) for the first wave.

Eric

Since they have full road closure, probably hard and costly and maybe impossible to get those farms closed to get an extra hour. One can always do the 3 or P12 race if you want three laps. :)