I saw the Nevada City Classic for the first time today, and witnessed the shrinking of the lead pack from lap to lap. How would it fare as a "hard" enough criterium course for Masters or Junior Nationals? Any thoughts?

Maybe somebody is reading Roger's posts about this!

http://www.usacycling.org/events/2007/roadfestival/JuniorMastersCourse.pdf

And he is category 2 on the track! He races year round, since cross season is from September to January. You can respect that.

Yet the field size shrinks, even at Track Nationals, the older the racers get. Perhaps they don't have the time or money to support their habit (hobby), or want to spend time with grandkids, or their closets are full of championship jerseys. And they hang up the bike and do something else.

I "retired" from racing in 1984 to pursue a college degree, start a family, and buy a home. Had I continued racing, I probably wouldn't have had those things nor been able to see my daughter earn a silver medal at Junior Track Nationals in 2005. Racing is no longer my god, and I'd rather NOT get gold than to become addicted to competition like I was 23 years ago. For when I expire, I'll walk on streets of gold.

Have you seen Delroy Rogers at track nat's? 70+ and still riding well. It is really cool to watch the 10-12 guys in the 70+ points race at Worlds. Inspiring! :) And local boy Mike McDonald is 65+ and most of the time he hangs in with the 45+ ubers in criteriums. And he doesn't complain about it either.

If your age group has perennial champions, you have a better chance at gold when and if they retire. After all, some folks may not be competing past the age of 70. For example, SCNCA listed only TWO track riders aged 60+ who were category 1 or 2 in 2006. But when you look at 50+, the number goes up to 20 cat 2 riders and 5 cat 1 riders. I imagine, but am not there yet myself, that as a rider ages he will no longer be competitive enough to stay a cat 1 or 2, no matter how hard he works. At Nationals, it's nice to know that age is not the sole determining factor. You want to race against the best in the country, and therefore have a barometer to gauge how you're doing and what you may want to do differently. Getting a gold medal when you're the only competitor is a shallow victory, but that doesn't mean I won't take it.

George

I think road courses should be somewhat selective, i.e. harder for some groups, at least a course that's harder than something like Merco. But, it's a matter of what is practical. And understand too that in most years there aren't more than one or three prospective nat's hosts making bids.

Perhaps the course choices will change in the future. The new person at USAC who is in charge of Nat's is Tom Vinson. Tom was a longtime racer, promoter, and District/Regional Rep in New England and he has a good sense about these things.

USAC is already (perhaps overly so) inclusive in the other disciplines for nat's. They basically let anyone with a reasonably appropriate skill level into the event and everyone gets their chance.

The criteriums are usually on very easy courses with an inevitable large field sprint full of fresh riders who all think they can win, both because of the courses, and the predominant tactics. In areas like NorCal where the criteriums and road races tend to be well above the average difficulty of the rest of the country there are relatively few NorCal riders who bother to go to nat's because of the easy courses and negative tactics.

The TT's are decided more or less on ability, not luck or tactics, and virtually all of the track events are not affected by luck and/or negative riding to affect the outcomes. In fact, the sprints usually have the fewest participants because some riders already know in advance that they won't be competitive (and won't advance to the sprint rounds), and they stay away. But in a pursuit or TT you can do a slow ride and nobody will notice.

And there is a new rule this year that says that the minimum field size of a 5-year age group for the awarding of a championship jersey (road or track) is one rider. So if you're the only 67 year-old woman who shows up for an event, you win. Or if there's only three 70-75 year-old guys in a race one of them will get a jersey. So, some jerseys/wins are easier to get than others... But it is "inclusive!"

Quote:100 feet of climbing per mile, was more like 20ft/mile. There was just a 300ft climb at the start and another 200ft rise on the other side of the circuit.
You're right, my mistake. It was flatter than Zamora and San Ardo.

Quote:Don't forget that the no-drop road course policy is straight out of the USCF, Tracy Lea to be specific.
It's true. I wouldn't be surprised if Lea selected Santa Rosa over other bidders because of the non-selective course.

This all begs one question, regarding other nationals events. How would the USCF impose similar "inclusive" criteria on track, crit, and TT "championships"?

I hear Warren thinking, don't even go there. ;-)

cyclartist wrote:Do you want a race to come down to three guys at the end? Did you see the finish of Milan-San Remo yesterday?

Interesting defense. One field finishes with a first group of 30, the rest in much larger groups, on a course with an average what, 100 feet of climbing per mile, and it's "selective"... at least in the opinion of the race promoter and one track specialist. Not surprisingly, then as now, no actual competitive road cyclists agree.

Some additional info about Nationals. For the last 4 years or so USAC went with the concept of a "cycling festival", holding road champs for Jrs, Masters and Elite riders at the same venue and over the same block of time.

This had some selling points, but by now USAC has become aware of the downside issues, so beginning next year the 3 road championships will be held at separate venues etc.

One of the single biggest problems with the festival approach was that it tied up roads for two weeks - hence only resort areas really worked. Related to that, courses for the three groups should not necessarily be the same - particularly for young juniors and older masters versus elite and young masters - but the festival approach lent itself to only having one or two courses.

The move away from festivals will permit having road and track championships in the same area and time frame, both for juniors and masters.

deSade wrote:

"Must have been your fitness, nobody I spoke with could recall a less selective local road race."

Steve Johnson was pushing the pace up the hills, (yes, there were hills) and as I said there were about a third of the starters left at the end, so don't question my fitness, dS. Do you want a race to come down to three guys at the end? Did you see the finish of Milan-San Remo yesterday? Now that was a race made by the riders. They weren't climbing the Alps, but do you think they cared? They raced what was there to be raced. And where is it written that only the strongest riders are supposed to win? How about the smartest ones?

The rule book is not as specific as you say it is about what constitutes an adequate Nats course:

"Road races are to be held on selective circuits, accessible to spectators, and which contain climbing, descending, and flat sections, but with few sharp or difficult turns. The climbs may be of fairly steep gradients."

I think the '96 course met those criteria. You may continue to argue that it didn't meet the selective part, but how selective do you want it to be? Two thirds of our starting group got shelled. I had a great ride there but for cramping at the end, but I ain't complaining, and it is water under the bridge. I gotta go...

Yes, Roger (Desade) complained long and loud about the course and apparently he's still not over that. But then, I don't remember seeing Roger's name on the podium when the race was held on any of the harder courses either.

And while some riders said before the races that the course might not be hard enough, after the race many of those same riders said the course and the race ended up being hard enough.

IIRC the 40-45 race ended up with a small group and in the 35-39 one or two riders finished ahead of the fields. Casey will probably remember it well since he was there as an official.

Anyway, water under the bridge.

If the nat's courses are made too hard it won't work for some of the groups, and/or the riders won't come. The organizers have a huge job to do and not everyone will be happy with the courses every year. The criterium courses have been pretty bad at times. It's no surprise that there aren't lots more people from NorCal going to the road portion of masters Nat's. There are other major races around the country where a person can go with good competition on hard road courses.

One could also go to Austria for the masters road Worlds. Many people have praised that event for years because of the courses, level of competition, and rider support.

cyclartist wrote:The road race course was the most selective one we could get, and you wouldn't believe how much abuse we still got from the locals up in the north end of Sonoma County.
No question Sonoma and Marin are two of the most problematic jurisdictions to promote a bicycle race. They are also among the worst CA counties for bike lanes and other bicycle traffic engineering.

cyclartist wrote:So if you're thinking about promoting a Nats in NorCal it would probably have to be in a less populated area, and then it might not meet your criteria, deSade, of being in a nice cool spot at low elevation.
Only if you have to be within a two hour drive from SFO. The Challenge RR and most of the winter road races held this year are examples of the kind of courses that would have made a more appropriate nationals rr.

cyclartist wrote:The course in my opinion was harder than Dunnigan Hills (I've never done San Ardo)
Must have been your fitness, nobody I spoke with could recall a less selective local road race.

cyclartist wrote:I don't recall anyone complaining about the road course
You weren't reading the NCNCA mailing list then, or talking to any of the district's stronger masters.

cyclartist wrote:But all in all everyone just took it in stride as the way bike racing is, as fair as we can make it but not completely fair to everyone, which makes the sport interesting in my book.
Well I'm glad you think so, but aside from those 20/100s, there were very few fit participants who appreciated the course selection or training all year and traveling to a flat, field sprinter's road course. The rule book is pretty clear about what constitutes a proper nationals course and Santa Rosa didn't come close. The strongest road cyclists, for the most part, were out of the medals, criterium and track specialists cleaned up, and except for Thurlow nobody considered the winners to be the best master road cyclists in the nation. Not what Nationals should be about, and not what they are about in other countries.

I hope future nationals (and district's) promoters will learn from past mistakes, not repeat them.

I raced in the '96 Nats in Santa Rosa in the 45-49 category, and was involved with the promotion group. Some observations:

The road race course was the most selective one we could get, and you wouldn't believe how much abuse we still got from the locals up in the north end of Sonoma County. So if you're thinking about promoting a Nats in NorCal it would probably have to be in a less populated area, and then it might not meet your criteria, deSade, of being in a nice cool spot at low elevation.

I would agree with some posters on another thread here about the selectivity of a course being up to the riders to some degree. In the 45+ road race, which was 54 miles (consisting of three 18 mile laps), a group of four rolled away in the first ten miles, while everyone watched all the favorites. When everyone got serious in the last ten miles, we were screaming along at 30-35mph and we still didn't catch those guys, although we had them in sight. The course in my opinion was harder than Dunnigan Hills (I've never done San Ardo), with more elevation gain per lap, and it weeded down a starting field of 85 to about thirty of us at the end. If you were a 20/100 you weren't there at the end.

I don't recall anyone complaining about the road course, although the Feds set up the criterium course (the current Corporate Crit course in Santa Rosa) in such a way that it was more hazardous than it needed to be. And then there were the 65 or so 45's who all thought they were going to be national champion that day and proceeded to crash all over the place. But all in all everyone just took it in stride as the way bike racing is, as fair as we can make it but not completely fair to everyone, which makes the sport interesting in my book.

WarrenG wrote:Masters road nationals was held in Santa Rosa about 10 years ago. It was popular with the riders.
Popular with some riders perhaps, unfortunately not with competitive roadies. Problem is, and continues to be, the USCF wants masters nationals to be promoted like a social event, mainly by favoring unselective courses (Portland, Bakersfield, and Park City being the exceptions).

Santa Rosa, for all the area's potential, made a poor choice of courses by finding one of the only flat loops in the county. Even Dunnigan Hills and San Ardo are more selective than the Santa Rosa Masters Nationals course was. As a result nearly every race finished in a (large) field sprint. It was great for trackies (as Chris Campbell noted), and 20/100 masters (20% bodyfat, 100mi/week) but sucked for everyone else (except Thurlow Rogers who soloed for most of his race).

Bottom line, if you're going to put on a national road championships at least used a halfway selective curse, ideally not selective due to altitude or heat tolerance as these are factors most of us cannot train for.

Yes, Mike, turning right on the track is discouraged, and often results in a metal on metal sound (or carbon on carbon). And don't forget that the person to your right is about a foot higher up than you, so... :-)

Thanks for your encouragement on our bid. For track nat's we usually get to go to nice places, and for the next three years the masters track world championships are at the Olympic Velodrome in Sydney, Australia!

Thanks for reminding the group Casey.

Yes, Bako is '02. Another of my undertakings to offer racing, at a high level, to us locals.

The TT course was flat and fast. It was also 102 degrees. There were multiple riders that, while they were physically trained for the event, they were not prepared for the heat. Only a few transports and just one evac. I am serious, just one rider had to be helivac'd to the local hospital due to overheating.

The road race was the classic Round Mountain course. Robert (VeloBob) L. uses this course for the Kern Womens Stage race. 24 mile loop, up and down lots. Oh yeah, 108 those days. No transports luckily, on those 2 days. But the officials let feeding be done ANYWHERE on the course! And all the officials and follow vehicles carried water to give to riders!

The crit was a traditional downtown course. I used a frozen bag of peas on my lower back and by the end of my 25 mile race, they were ready to eat.

Yeah, it just happened to be the hottest week of the year. In Kern County. "The Golden Empire". ah huh......

So, we were contacted by local icon, Kerry Ryan of Action Sports to put this together. He had the backing of the Bakersfield Sports marketing Group to put a "National level competition" together. This marketing group was responsible for all costs associated with the event.

While the local sponsorships did succeed in covering all costs, hosting the masters nationals was quite an endeavor.

To coin a phrase from my good friend, and Santa Rosa masters nationals promoter in 1996, Bob Moore;
"Do NOT try to promote 2 national level events in one year. It is way too much." The last year of the Sequoia Classic was 2002. I just did not listen.

California has the courses and metro areas that would entice riders to visit our Golden State. We just need the organizing committee that has the drive to make this application the top choice.

Well said Casey, this is a big project. If the right venues and committee are assembled, anything is possible.

Warren, good luck with your bid for the '08 track Natz! Do I need to learn to turn left only?

mike c (not H!, i am from earth and a mere human!)

IN order to host a nationals you need a pretty large group of dedicated people to put the event together. If you think putting together a single day event is tough try doing a week long event like masters nationals with at least 3 different venues. Remember USAC doesn't promote any of the national championships. They give the rights out to a promoter to hold the championships. Masters nationals was in Santa Rosa in 96 and in Bakersfield in 2002. The elite RR championships was in Redding in 2001.

Nah!

Those altitudes for Master Districts are not that high. Look at the champs over the last couple of years and I think you will find most are from the Bay Area or similar type regions.

One great way to train for Masters Districts is to do the Death Ride, or race the Death Ride.

Mikey? He is from Mars where there is no air, he can't be used as an example.

-R

Masters road nationals was held in Santa Rosa about 10 years ago. It was popular with the riders.

Here's the way nationals hosting works. The organizer does not get any of the $35 entry fee. The USCF keeps that to cover the costs of the daily officials' fees, timing and results, and the jerseys and medals. The organizer has to pay for pretty much everything else, including housing and transportation for the officials. The organizer has to raise their own money to do this, and the sponsors who contribute must not offer products that compete with the sponsors already retained by USAC.

Typically, some place in the US that nobody wants to visit during the summer is trying to fill their town's hotel rooms and restaurants, so a town says they will come up with most of the money needed to host the event. Then the very few number of towns like this submits a bid and the event is awarded to one of those towns. This is why nat's are in places like Bakersfield in July, Ft Smith Arkansas, Park City, UT (7000' elevation!).

The place for 2006 and 2007 in Pennsylvania sounds like one of the better spots, except the criterium is held on a car racing track. Yes, most of the race courses for masters nat's are not especially good (Santa Rosa had some of the best ones) and this is a major reason why there aren't more NorCal riders going to masters nat's.

A group of us here in NorCal intend to bid to host the 2008 Masters Track National Championships at Hellyer Park in San Jose. Somewhere near 400 riders will attend and it will require $10-$14K to cover the expenses.

Jess better get himself aquainted with points racing pretty soon if he wants to be ready. And for folks who find themselves racing in small fields, the new rule for USAC masters nat's is that the minimum field size for awarding a champion's jersey (in any age group-either sex) is one rider.

Honestly. If the NCNCA and the SCNCA are the most saturated racing regions in the nation, why doesn't California have the nationals? Or at least the masters' nationals, since we're so master-heavy!

It's got to be better for the nation to come to the dry heat of Cali in the summer than to suffer in the dank sweatbox of the East Coast!

While we're on the subject, or close to it ... Why are all the NCNCA masters district championships held at high altitude? Nearly all of the participants live at sea level. Doesn't that tend to provide an unfair advantage to those who live at altitude or have the leisure time to properly acclimate before the races?

(Except for my main man Mikey, who trains with the angels amongst the clouds).

Zebraman