According to Casey, we have more cat 4 women events than ever.

According to Tom S's survey, less cat 4 women racing than last year for the same big events.

Why is the demographic trend so far this year have more or the same cat 1/2/3 women licensees than end of year 2005 and signficantly less cat 4 women for the same time period measured (halfway for this year versus full year 2005)? This is probably a contributing factor to what Tom S found when looking at this year's results. How do we fix that? That decline is a more important issue than the perceived slight that there are less cat 4 women events.

For whatever reason this is the exact opposite trend of the men.

casey wrote: In fact Cat 4 women have had more racing opportunities in the first 5 months of this year compared to last year.
First, thanks Casey for checking out the stats, good information here. I also appreciate the race demographics you provide for us. I was surprised to read that there are 224 female racers over 35 years and 72 female racers over 45 years. It appears to be enough women over 35/45 to add master categories to cat 3 fields and to cat 4 fields. Perhaps if this occured the promoters could generate more registered female racers, make more money and not contemplate on eliminating female cat 4 fields in the future.

velogirl wrote:[Of course, the only two races I've noticed that eliminated the CAT4 women are in June and July (months 6 & 7 -- outside Casey's study).

Sabine, is this interesting enough for you?

:lol:

Yes, it is. Danke.

Amused at the statistics. But thats the norm on any argument tossed around these parts.

Sometimes instead of running towards stats it might be best to just sit back and listen. Really listen to what riders are saying.

Sabine

casey wrote: In 96 Burlingame dropped the 1/2/Pro race in favor of a Tandem race. THe next year the Tandems were gone and the 1/2/Pro race was back.

Well heck! That's the solution. Maybe promoters should consider a W4/M5 tandem race!!!

Elis wrote:If memory serves me correctly, the early-season races like Cherry Pie opted not to have cat 5 men's races because they followed the Early Birds so closely. Since the Early Birds were changed this year to allow cat. 5 men to earn their upgrade in the first month of the year, it was assumed that all the "cat. 5" men who wanted to race in the early season would go out to the Early Birds, do the mentorship and earn their upgrades, and race the next month's races as cat. 4s.

Cat 5 men have been able to upgrade via the Early Bird series for several years now. The difference in why Cat 5 masters couldn't ride at Cherry Pie this year ( and no Cat 5 men at all at McLane Pacific) was a USCF rule change that restricted mixed category races containing Cat 5 men to 75 riders, down from the previous field limits of 100.

If people go back and review historical results they will see that races, especially Crits, drop and add different events all the time. In 96 Burlingame dropped the 1/2/Pro race in favor of a Tandem race. THe next year the Tandems were gone and the 1/2/Pro race was back.

If memory serves me correctly, the early-season races like Cherry Pie opted not to have cat 5 men's races because they followed the Early Birds so closely. Since the Early Birds were changed this year to allow cat. 5 men to earn their upgrade in the first month of the year, it was assumed that all the "cat. 5" men who wanted to race in the early season would go out to the Early Birds, do the mentorship and earn their upgrades, and race the next month's races as cat. 4s.

Though the Early Birds are great learning tools for beginners, it's important to note that the "beginner" women's 4 category was not able to use those races for upgrade point requirements.

Though I wouldn't dilute the arguement by calling this discrimination (you're right, Lorri, it's not an inalienable right, but it is a damn fine priviledge!), I do feel that it is inequitable to cut women's 4 races and try to justify the cut by showing that men's races sometimes get cut, too. To put it in "statistical" terms, on any given race day there are two women's races offered (with the exception of the wonderful women's-only race, Kern) to up to eight or so different men's races. In my opinion, eliminating half of the standard women's races is not the same as eliminating one of eight men's races. The math just doesn't add up.

casey wrote:At least based on the first 5 month of this year there is no trend to not have races for Cat 4 women. In fact Cat 4 women have had more racing opportunities in the first 5 months of this year compared to last year.

Ooh, stats! My least favorite class in business school. However, I learned that you can't compare apples to oranges.

The missing pieces of information would be:

How many of these are new races? IOW, are there more CAT4 races because there are more races in total on the calendar?

The second question would be, how many races that offered at CAT4 women's race last year aren't offering a CAT4 women's race this year?

Of course, the only two races I've noticed that eliminated the CAT4 women are in June and July (months 6 & 7 -- outside Casey's study).

Sabine, is this interesting enough for you?

:lol:

OK the question that started this thread was is it a trend not to have events for Cat 4 women at more races this year. I went back and compared the first 5 months of last year to the first 5 months of this year.

Last year there were 25 races that offered a separate Cat 4 women's event and 9 events that offered a 3/4 women's event. This doesn't include open women's races or races where all women were raced together but picked separately.

This year there were 29 events that offered a separate Cat 4 women's race and 11 that offered a 3/4 race during the first 5 months. At least based on the first 5 month of this year there is no trend to not have races for Cat 4 women. In fact Cat 4 women have had more racing opportunities in the first 5 months of this year compared to last year.

velogirl wrote:casey wrote:Are the above examples of some kind of discrimination ?

And, of course, if the men can debate the 45+ fields for two months, the women should get to debate something too, right?
.

Ack!

Ssshhhh

No..that thread finally just died. Don't want to go waking it up now.

Besides, this thread is far more entertaining.

Sabine, one vino behind Mhernandez

casey wrote:Are the above examples of some kind of discrimination ?

I don't think anyone has used the term discrimination except you, Casey. I don't think the issue is discrimination -- is bike racing a certain inalienable right? Nope. My original post was simply to state that I hope more promoters don't follow the lead of the good old boys who have eliminated the women's 4 races.

And, of course, if the men can debate the 45+ fields for two months, the women should get to debate something too, right?

ps -- Burlingame had a women's 35+ field in 2004 (combined with the W1/2/3, W4) -- total field size 81 women. And they turned women away, if I recall, because they thought the field size was too large.

I think the original question is valid, that being ~ is this a trend (no w4 races)?

In my opinion, I don't think so. Well, I certainly hope not.

As somebody who trails around the hem of a skirt more than most, I'd say that women's racing is doing quite well in this region and will continue to do so - because the infastructure is there, thanks to the dedicated work of some quality individuals.

I've been to plenty, PLENTY of men's p1/2 and masters 1/2/3 races this year that had low turnouts. And, I've been to some that had big turnouts. I reckon the same attendence swings go with the women, as well.

I guess my last words (after the 2nd glass o' vino) would be to the promoters. Go ahead and have the cat 4 women's races ... cause folks, they is some hotties in action.

yum.

signed,
mhernandez
safeway geezer
fatn'happy sissyboy

casey wrote: This year the Cat 4 women's race is being dropped to make room for the 45+/55+ men's race.
I understand the elimination of a field because of the time factor, but these master men 45+/55+ can also race in their exclusive category either pro, cat 1,2,3,4,5 at this race, yet when they eliminate the women cat 4 field they provide these women "zero" opportunity to race. It appears unfair to the cat 4 female racer and to the female racing community.

Oh...so much to respond to, so little time.

Besides, arguing about who is preregistered one month before an event is just silly.

Instead I will put my efforts towards encouraging our team members (in all categories and genders) to come out in force for the Lafayette crit and (I almost hate to say it because me and hill climbs don't see eye to eye) the Mt Diablo hillclimb.

We do have choices that weekend and I'll see to it that my energy goes towards rewarding those promotors who do consider our membership.

Sabine, not afraid of the big bad scary downhill at Coyote but not racing it anyway

clymbing wrote:casey wrote:
Next year if the pattern holds the masters 45+ race will make way for a separate Cat 4 women's event.
Instead of leaving out the Women Cat 4 altogether combine WCat 4/W-Masters35+/W-Masters45+, this would allow W-Cat 123 to race a second race (or for a W Cat 2/3 Masters perhaps the only race) and then provide a field with experienced racers who could model for the beginners. This will increase the women's field, provide experience for cat 4 racers, give an opportunity for many women to place top ten and promoters could make some money. Perhaps the prize is simple, does not have to be large amount of money, heck I have placed top 5 and I was satisfied with cycling socks and or a bag of Peets coffee. Yes the token dollar amount is fun to receive, but mostly the upgrade points and team points are motivating for me. I would like to see more promoters invest in creating a women's field with choice to give an opportunity for many women to race and some women a chance to race twice.

As far as I know Burlingame has never offered a 35+ or 45+ women's race. Last year the Burlingame promoters eliminated the 45+/55+ Men's races in order to allow the Cat 4 women to have a separate race. This year the Cat 4 women's race is being dropped to make room for the 45+/55+ men's race.

casey wrote:
Next year if the pattern holds the masters 45+ race will make way for a separate Cat 4 women's event.
Instead of leaving out the Women Cat 4 altogether combine WCat 4/W-Masters35+/W-Masters45+, this would allow W-Cat 123 to race a second race (or for a W Cat 2/3 Masters perhaps the only race) and then provide a field with experienced racers who could model for the beginners. This will increase the women's field, provide experience for cat 4 racers, give an opportunity for many women to place top ten and promoters could make some money. Perhaps the prize is simple, does not have to be large amount of money, heck I have placed top 5 and I was satisfied with cycling socks and or a bag of Peets coffee. Yes the token dollar amount is fun to receive, but mostly the upgrade points and team points are motivating for me. I would like to see more promoters invest in creating a women's field with choice to give an opportunity for many women to race and some women a chance to race twice.

I don't think there should be a cat 5 race there, either, for the same reason.

Some people seem to gotten caught up in this tangent and all I was offering was some rationale for why one might choose the other event, two of the three events on this weekend have the category you desire, and only four women have bothered to put their money behind their beliefs (before this thread was even started).

It still boils down to this - the positive way out of this situation is to spend your money with the promoter that does things the way you like. Putting interesting motives behind my words does not progress the situation. Tom S put an nice suggestion - promote the event you want to enter. I even entered the events put on by those promoters so I put my money and time into those events.

casey wrote:
Are the above examples of some kind of discrimination ? Since some of these categories are almost always good for at least 50 entries it isn't an economic issue as to why these races don't have fields for popular categories. Just because a promoter doesn't offer a race for a certain category one year doesn't mean they don't support the category they left out. AS was pointed out on the NCNCA email list Burlingame dropped the 45+ masters race last year to offer a separate Cat 4 women's race. This year the Cat 4 women's race gets rotated out to make room for a 45+/55+ masters race. Next year if the pattern holds the masters 45+ race will make way for a separate Cat 4 women's event.

Casey, I think you make complete sense. I truly didn't have an issue with this myself, but it's comments like this (below) that grate on me:

Quote:Beginning riders would be better matched to a hill climb course anyways due to the lack of a high speed technical downhill in a pack ala Coyote Creek ( at least during the uphill race portion) and pack riding skills will be practiced at an enforced slower speed during the hill climb until the climb breaks things up.

If this were true, WHY have a Cat 5 race at Coyote Creek.

But I shall choose to ignore the patronizing comments and stick to those which make sense. The reality is and always has been that you can't please everybody. It all works out in the end.

This year McLane Pacific didn't have a single category that a Cat 5 male could ride in in either their RR or Crit.

The Cal Aggie Crit didn't have a race for 45+ masters - normally a very popular category

Cherry Pie didn't have any master event open to Cat 5 riders

Martinez didn't have a 1/2/pro category

Dinuba Crit didn't have a 45+ race or a 35+ 4/5 race ( again a category that almost always fills up when offered)

Livermore Hills has never had a race a male over the age of 16 could ride in.

I could go on with lots of other examples of races that excluded 1 or more popular , regular groups

Are the above examples of some kind of discrimination ? Since some of these categories are almost always good for at least 50 entries it isn't an economic issue as to why these races don't have fields for popular categories. Just because a promoter doesn't offer a race for a certain category one year doesn't mean they don't support the category they left out. AS was pointed out on the NCNCA email list Burlingame dropped the 45+ masters race last year to offer a separate Cat 4 women's race. This year the Cat 4 women's race gets rotated out to make room for a 45+/55+ masters race. Next year if the pattern holds the masters 45+ race will make way for a separate Cat 4 women's event.

I'm reading so many double standards here that I can't dignify them with a response.

Lorri, he's never going to get it. There are better races to do that weekend.

-Katie Kelly

I agree with the concerns voiced here and have voiced my response in the thread being discussed via the email forum. I do, however, want to let Reverend Dr. Jay know some of us women do race in the "men's" races.

As a woman who has, I can tell you that it's not even close to a reasonable expectation to tell women who do not have the opportunity to race against their peers at an event to go race with the men. I would say that for most women, and especially women who may be coming out to one of their first races, racing with men would take the fun out of racing at least for that day.

In my experience the men are physically much bigger, the packs are much bigger, men ride more aggressively and do not look out for one another in the way you see in women's packs. While this may be a comfortable spot for some women, for most women it is not an idea that appeals to them and is not the way to try and grow the sport. Regardless of anything else, telling a woman riding in a "men's" race does not solve the problem of promoters not offering women's races.

I feel that suggesting that women race with men as a solution to not offering women's races is akin to cars telling cyclists to ride on the sidewalk as a solution to not creating bike lanes. Very one-sided and missing the point.

I would swear that it seems like you are the one focusing on the side argument.

Read this part again...

SWoo wrote:If we want women's 4 events, women should be pre registering for women's 4 events. There are only four women in the women's 4 hill climb and zero women in the women's 4 only crit at Lafayette. I envy someone having the luxury of being able to decide at the last minute whether or not one wants to race, however this really gives promoters heartburn when they hope to see about 40% of their contestants pre-reg and instead see zero percent.

Clymbing has made a positive suggestion towards this which I think is a step in the right direction.

We should be focusing on the positive things we can do with what we have - support the events that do the things the way you think they should be done and making suggestions to make it economically feasible for promoters to hold the events we want to attend. (edit: this includes not only registering for that particular event but encouraging others to enter their respective race at the same event...)

To paraphrase some idiot who should be fired, go race with the races you have, not the races you wish you had.

SWoo wrote:If one has teammates, one could have gone to these races with their teammates for support and gotten a top ten just by registering and finishing and being the designated upgradee for the team.

Perhaps we're missing the point here. If a CAT4 woman isn't winning CAT4 women's races, why would she want to upgrade to CAT3? Especially since so many of the women's 3 races are combined W1/2/3? That just doesn't make sense. So, why should someone try to upgrade by getting top 10s in races with so few racers?

My comment had nothing to do with upgrading. It had to do with the lack of women's 4 fields at two upcoming races. You're focusing your attention trying to "fix" the wrong problem, Steven.

If you are a W4 and there is no W4 race, you can race in the "mens" category.

From Casey's Quote:
1H2. Women may enter any race for which they are eligible
by age, category, and any performance requirements and
may enter categorized races for men that are up to one
category lower than their women's category, or in the case of
category 1 women, up to two categories lower. In addition,
category 4 and 3 women who are 35 or older may compete in
Masters races for all riders up to 20 years greater than their
racing age, subject to other eligibility requirements.

I did not say it was going to be easy, getting people just to overcome whatever prevents them from showing up to race is a large issue for some people.

If one has teammates, one could have gone to these races with their teammates for support and gotten a top ten just by registering and finishing and being the designated upgradee for the team.

http://www.velopromo.com/cant-rl06.htm
http://www.velopromo.com/pine-rl06.htm
http://www.velopromo.com/dnba-rl06.htm
http://www.velopromo.com/ward-rl06.htm
http://www.velopromo.com/Tuol-rl06.htm
http://www.velopromo.com/scrz-rl06.htm
http://www.deltavelo.com/content/grandprix2006/results1.html

I left out half a dozen races where one would have had to beat three to five other athletes to get a top ten.

This is way peripheral to the discussion in any event, I don't mean anything other than the rules are different - that's an indisputable fact.
(edit: I think you may be reading too much into this whole point - getting to a race and finishing is an accomplishment that a lot of people cannot achieve so I am not denigrating anyone, just pointing out the exact rules here.)

If we want women's 4 events, women should be pre registering for women's 4 events. There are only four women in the women's 4 hill climb and zero women in the women's 4 only crit at Lafayette. I envy someone having the luxury of being able to decide at the last minute whether or not one wants to race, however this really gives promoters heartburn when they hope to see about 40% of their contestants pre-reg and instead see zero percent.

Clymbing has made a positive suggestion towards this which I think is a step in the right direction.

I think trying to get every single event to have every single category is a losing proposition. What about the children? :)

Steven, until you've personally raced in a women's 4 field, please don't attempt to tell us what it's like.

Women's 4 is unique in that there are always some super-fit women (typically the 20 year olds, but also some masters) coming into the field (quickly to upgrade to cat3). Then there are the career 4s -- mostly women in their 30s and 40s who enjoy the sport but will probably never upgrade. And then there are the scary-new beginners who no one wants to ride near. It's bad enough that women with lots of race experience are required to race with women who perhaps have never done a single race before. At least the CAT5 men can upgrade based on experience (so they don't have to race with the beginners).

If it were so easy to upgrade, I know dozens of women who race frequently (20+ races per season) and have been doing so for three, four, five years -- as CAT4s. Don't you think they'd have upgraded by now if it were that simple?

The point of my initial email remains -- I find it discouraging that certain promoters have chosen to offer multiple fields for given male categories but have excluded one women's category altogether. I know that's the promoters' choice. However, I hope this isn't becoming a trend -- acceptable because a couple of clubs have already done it. It sends a message to the women in the racing community that they're not important or valued.

There are many of us in the racing community who have worked very hard to promote women's racing. Women's racing is significantly different than it was just five years ago (when there were very few women racing and it was pretty darn easy to upgrade to CAT3). I feel like we've made significant inroads in many ways -- separate fields for separate categories, more masters fields, etc. I hope we don't begin losing ground because we're sending the message that women's racing isn't a priority, but rather simply tolerated by the other gender of majority.

Perhaps if the promoters offered a selection within the fields, there would be more female racers. Like add a women's 35+ to the w4 field. Or like Specialized/Sierra Nevada adding a 45+ to the W4 field. This gives some women a chance to race more than once. Sometimes it is very hard to drive 40 plus miles to a crit to race for only 40 minutes.

I am not unsympathetic to the cause. However, it's not exactly the same, the minimum field requirements for W4 are much lower at 10 - about ten W4 races this year have gotten barely the minimum requirement so just showing up and finishing at those races would have gotten a W4 an upgrade.

Typically in a M4 field one sees about 45 on the low end barring split fields so just finishing just gets a typical M4 a pat on the back. :)

If I were the promoter of the W4 race at Lafayette, I would be wondering - where are the women - zero registered?

In any case, perhaps we should encourage anyone, whatever gender or category, to race there just because they went out of their way to have a W4 only race.

Maybe if we can come up with a concrete proposal for the NCNCA to encourage participation for certain segments that would be better than this back and forth on the details of this particular weekend.

It looks like the classic time available vs to many categories issue again. I know Burlingame has to be off the streets by a certain time. They are already starting at 7am as it is. In the past there have been problems at Burlingame with trying to run all the women together ( something that most women have started they are not in favor of) and there have been problems trying to run two separate groups on the course at the same time.

I believe that Coyote Creek also has a time issue and has to be off the course by a certain time. Again Coyote Creek is starting at 7:30 and going till 3:30. As has been pointed out there is already a race the Cat 4 women can do on the same day as Coyote Creek so this might have come into the decision process when the promoters were trying to allocate their limited race time.

Cat 4 women is not the same as Cat 5 men. Cat 4 women is closer to Cat 4 men. Riders can't upgrade simply by doing X number of races. The requirements for men and women to upgrade from 4 to 3 is exactly the same and you have some career Cat 4 women just like you have some career Cat 4 men.

1. Isn't W4 like cat5 for men? 'Beginner'? Get your starts, upgrade... shouldn't take years, though I've been stuck in 4 for decades.

2. I believe the North Gate hill climb time trial is truly a time time, not a semi-mass start like the diablo Challenge up the south gate to summitt. So, no pack riding...

Your argument assumes that all CAT4 women are beginners. I know many CAT4 women who have been racing for years. They have good skills and are smart racers. However, they may never upgrade to CAT3.

Maybe. But for the sake of argument...

The other side of the coin is supporting the events that do have a W4 field. The Mt Diablo hill climb the same day does have a W4 field. Some may object that a hill climb is not an event for certain riders, but I would think the same riders would be disadvantaged by the Coyote Creek course, and possibly be pulled before the finish on the Coyote Creek course.

Beginning riders would be better matched to a hill climb course anyways due to the lack of a high speed technical downhill in a pack ala Coyote Creek ( at least during the uphill race portion) and pack riding skills will be practiced at an enforced slower speed during the hill climb until the climb breaks things up.

Also the very next day, the Lafayette crit has a separate W4 field, unlike prior years' combined W34 at Coyote Creek.