I have no idea why I allow myself to engage with you guys.
If you want to race the race, please do.
If you don't want to race it, please don't feel obliged to diss it.
I'm offering a different format of race and course. That's all. It's variety. The sport is supposed to be FUN. Remember, fun?
It's a charitable event for a local elementary school, not a business. I'm not ripping anyone off with inflated reg fees or penny prizes. I don't have unreasonable or dangerous field limits. You don't even have to drive to the hinterlands to do the race. It doesn't have to be the best, or the hardest, or the cleverest. I'm just hoping it will be FUN for the racers.
Yesterday some racers were ripping into Ron over the Joe Mendes Crit. Today you are ripping into me for trying a different format or calling the race "special" or "difficult."
I've put a hell of a lot of my and my family's and friends' limited free time to throw this party. You can RSVP and come have fun; but if you don't want to, I don't need to hear your list of reasons. I'm sure we'll manage to kick it without you.
p.s. - Does anyone recall that this thread was simply an explanation of the race format for the racers??
ZebraMan wrote:The bottom line is that the Napa Gran Prix is made so difficult by virtue of the repeated intervals that the racers may sprint for 5th place just to end the pain.
Bike racing is painful on any course. There's nothing special about yours.
Call me a "web pundit" or whatever you want, but you can count me out of any race that doesn't reward the first wheel across the line with the win. I find nothing boring about this tradition.
sluggo wrote:Hairpins in crits don't work. They just encourage the kamikazi riding of people who don't understand the concept of one line through technical turns.
Tell that to Cherry Pie. 750 participants this year. Nearly completely sold out in all fields. 36 years running, including in the rain.
There is no "hairpin" on this course. The shape of the "Crazy P" and a wrinkle in the pavement disturbed some racers last year (and titilated others), so I removed it. This year's Ohno Turnaround is not a bomb-the-inside-and-slam-on-the-brakes style of corner. The entry to the turn will narrow to 1/3 of the road. Delineators on the inside will set the arc of the turnaround. This turn should more closely resemble a speed-skating or track corner than a traditional hairpin.
That said, it bears noting that hairpins rarely cause injurious crashes. There were none at Cherry Pie, nor at Land Park, nor at Brisbane in the rain!! The pavement throughout the Turnaround is exceptional. I have favored the higher-skilled categories with multiple fields to respect the technical difficulty of the course, and I've limited field sizes.
I beg to differ with your opinion, Sluggo. I believe that this will be a fast, challenging, tactical, SAFE and FUN course.
With all do respect to Jess, this course doesn't sound appealing either. Last years course was a bust too. I don't care what kind of spin you put on it, or what format you run. Hairpins in crits don't work. They just encourage the kamikazi riding of people who don't understand the concept of one line through technical turns.
If I wanted to do this format, I would just go down to the track, which I might do.
I appreciate you taking the time to put on the race, promote the race, & be vocal about it.
ZebraMan wrote:
But in any case, this thread was not to justify the race to Warren Geisart, it was to explain the format and rules to the potential participants.
And I, Warren Geissert participated in this thread so that potential participants would have a more thorough understanding of the format being employed by Jess Rafael.
There is nothing difficult for spectators to understand. The first across the line for the final 5 laps are the podium finishers. Period. The decisions that they make along the way are intriguing, but for the non-racer spectator the excitement of the sprint finish is increased five-fold.
The bottom line is that the Napa Gran Prix is made so difficult by virtue of the repeated intervals that the racers may sprint for 5th place just to end the pain.
I can also say that I personally would join a three man break for the promise of a top-five placement, especially knowing that one of my teammates was thus able to rest in the field for one of the final sprints. Two in the top five is a commendable result for any team.
In last year's 35+ 1/2/3 RW&O race (which you missed, Warren), Dean Laberge sat in the field and consciously allowed a five-man break to go away with a sizeable advantage. And yet, he won the race because his strategy paid off. IT WAS THRILLING TO WATCH!
I prefer the reverse win and out to the win & out because it's more tactical and more of a gamble. Also, there's naturally less interest in the subsequent sprints when they are for decreasingly significant placement. And finally, because it makes the most sense for the winner of the final sprint to win the race.
But in any case, this thread was not to justify the race to Warren Geisart, it was to explain the format and rules to the potential participants.
Tempo isn't too bad-just placing the top 1-3 riders each lap. Many of the road Chief Referees have experience scoring these races at the track because they are a common event at the track. And those laps take only about 25 seconds each.
Here's an example of irony... the person who resurrected reverse win and out at the track last year amidst complaints was.... wait for it... Jess's buddy, Hernando. "Great minds think alike", I guess.
(Sorry, Jess, but you set me up too well for me to pass this up. :D )
I don't agree with a miss and out on the road. I did a couple of them way back, in Somerville, NJ. When the field is smaller than 30-40 riders it works okay because the guys near the front feel threatened so they go fast, but in larger fields the front guys are not threatened early in the race so you end up with a wall of riders at the front and the guys near the back are trying to force their way into holes. Then, when the last rider should be called out of the race there isn't a good way to remove the rider in a reliable way.
Anyway, Jess, I'm all for making races more interesting, and you are trying to do that, and that's a good thing. I just don't agree with this particular way of doing that.
On a short course I think a "tempo" race could work well. In a tempo race, points are awarded to the first 1-3 places across the line on every lap, and the final lap is worth extra points/places. There could also be extra points at the halfway point of the race. Riders who finish with zero points are placed according to the position they're in when they cross the finish line for the final time. This race format strongly encourages breakaways because riders know they can score points even if they are away for just a lap or three, and when there are points available for the field there is a sprint involving the riders close to the front.
As much as it pains me to admit it, Warren is right on track (GET IT?!). Miss and out would be much better, and that course is made it being so short, and with just a short explanation the spectators AND racers can understand it. It is logical fit for RACING go faster and win. And in addition to what Warren stated, I think that what makes a win and out type of format fun is a one (fixed) gear track bike piloted by EXPERIENCED TRACK riders. It takes a different, honed set of skills to ride a fixed gear and try not to be first over the line. Not so difficult on a road bike with brakes though, just squeeze the levers and you go slow.
A crit that you have to purposely hold back in just seems, well, wrong. Isn't a race supposed to be fast at the end?
I really don't care who signs up first, I would sign up for a crit first too if it was what I was best at, maybe we could have the winners of a boxing round robin tournament get a timed head start. You couldn't keep me away!
But I WILL be there to watch and race! WHY?
Can you imagine the crashes when the lower categories lock up the brakes as they try to figure out where they're at place-wise? Fantastic! And the race speeds will be SO slow! Why go fast until the last lap, who cares? Imagine the hi-jinx when a racer doesn't pull out and doesn't care about being disqualified. Have the officials figure that out! Maybe all the riders stop during the last five laps and look at the video and argue who should have been pulled. What happens if you don't pull out because you don't agree or don't hear? You can't register for the next crit? You can't do anymore abnormally formated races?
I can't wait until they bring this format to car races, motorcycle races, and maybe a marathon where the guy who is in the lead at every countdown mile to 26 is eliminated. What excitement!
So, you will not place anyone beyond the top 6 in each race. The folks who care about the places after that will be disappointed, and many will not agree with you that those places don't matter.
Track races have utilized many different formats over the years, but the reverse win and out is rarely used for good reasons. The normal win and out is far more popular, and easier for riders and spectators to understand.
It's strange when the guy(s) who worked hard to form a winning break and still won't get a chance for a win unless there are at least 5 riders, and they stay away during all of the sprint laps. And, if all five places are up the road, at your race there will be nothing left for the pack to do because you won't record their placings. Talk about boring...
Your comment about who registered first is irrelevant because that guy would also tell you that the race you called boring, the points race, is in fact his favorite race of all.
On a short course like the one you're using various points races like "tempo", or "snowball", or normal points race, and versions of them can work well.
As for your comment about "web pundits" being the only ones who will complain... I think they won't be the only ones, as was the case last year when reverse win and out was resurrected at the track.
Ya know Jess, your attitude towards people in this forum who disagree with you could be better than what you display.
It is only a disincentive for a break of three if all three are only gunning for the win. Given the sparcity of podiums in most racers' careers, many will see this as an advantage. (Especially the Elite Cat.2's.)
Also, who is to say that no one will bridge to that break of three in the final laps and make it viable for the win?
In fact, logically there is a strong INcentive for breaks in this format. It is more likely that a small break will succeed in this race than in any other format, where they are usually hunted down by the sprinters or their teammates. In this format there is less incentive for the pack to eviscerate a break. Thus, more non-sprinters should use that fact to attack (even if they may be settling for 3rd to 5th place).
It is a disincentive for racers who want a mass gallop pack sprint at the finish of every crit they ride. This format promotes pack safety and rewards the tactical racer.
Why record no further placings? For which sprint? Only the winner of each scored lap is relevant. Unless you are the kind of racer who collects top ten statistics,* the latter finishers in each sprint are equally irrelevant, except when the story is told to their teammates in race reports. But if you are in fact that racer who aims for top tens, you will be exactly the person who will launch a break for a top five, so who is there to complain except web pundits?! (That's called irony, Warren.)
As a track afficianado, Warren, I have to believe you are simply playing devil's advocate. Variety is the spice of life. The track offers many modes of competition, so why should crits always be contested the same way? Two years ago I tried a points race format. Boring. Last year I tried this one. It was so exciting tactically that I was screaming into the mic on the final 20 minutes!!! That's why I'm running it for each category this year.
You may also notice that the preeminent American master track racer of our generation was the first to preregister.
* These are also the same guys who trample over each other in the back of a sprint to get their precious 15th place. Perhaps all races should only score the prize positions?!? A dfiscussion for another thread ...
I hope the reverse win and out format doesn't get repeated because there are too many disincentives. If three riders get away before the sprints begin, they are racing for 3rd, 4th, and 5th place. If one rider gets away before the sprints begin, they are racing for 5th place.
Why will there be no places recorded beyond 5th or 6th place? The final sprint that only rewards the winner will be...
Yeah Jess, how dare you try to help us!
Thanks for trying something different - it's a bit risky but potentially very exciting!
I have no idea why I allow myself to engage with you guys.
If you want to race the race, please do.
If you don't want to race it, please don't feel obliged to diss it.
I'm offering a different format of race and course. That's all. It's variety. The sport is supposed to be FUN. Remember, fun?
It's a charitable event for a local elementary school, not a business. I'm not ripping anyone off with inflated reg fees or penny prizes. I don't have unreasonable or dangerous field limits. You don't even have to drive to the hinterlands to do the race. It doesn't have to be the best, or the hardest, or the cleverest. I'm just hoping it will be FUN for the racers.
Yesterday some racers were ripping into Ron over the Joe Mendes Crit. Today you are ripping into me for trying a different format or calling the race "special" or "difficult."
I've put a hell of a lot of my and my family's and friends' limited free time to throw this party. You can RSVP and come have fun; but if you don't want to, I don't need to hear your list of reasons. I'm sure we'll manage to kick it without you.
p.s. - Does anyone recall that this thread was simply an explanation of the race format for the racers??
ZebraMan wrote:The bottom line is that the Napa Gran Prix is made so difficult by virtue of the repeated intervals that the racers may sprint for 5th place just to end the pain.
Bike racing is painful on any course. There's nothing special about yours.
Call me a "web pundit" or whatever you want, but you can count me out of any race that doesn't reward the first wheel across the line with the win. I find nothing boring about this tradition.
sluggo wrote:Hairpins in crits don't work. They just encourage the kamikazi riding of people who don't understand the concept of one line through technical turns.
Tell that to Cherry Pie. 750 participants this year. Nearly completely sold out in all fields. 36 years running, including in the rain.
There is no "hairpin" on this course. The shape of the "Crazy P" and a wrinkle in the pavement disturbed some racers last year (and titilated others), so I removed it. This year's Ohno Turnaround is not a bomb-the-inside-and-slam-on-the-brakes style of corner. The entry to the turn will narrow to 1/3 of the road. Delineators on the inside will set the arc of the turnaround. This turn should more closely resemble a speed-skating or track corner than a traditional hairpin.
That said, it bears noting that hairpins rarely cause injurious crashes. There were none at Cherry Pie, nor at Land Park, nor at Brisbane in the rain!! The pavement throughout the Turnaround is exceptional. I have favored the higher-skilled categories with multiple fields to respect the technical difficulty of the course, and I've limited field sizes.
I beg to differ with your opinion, Sluggo. I believe that this will be a fast, challenging, tactical, SAFE and FUN course.
With all do respect to Jess, this course doesn't sound appealing either. Last years course was a bust too. I don't care what kind of spin you put on it, or what format you run. Hairpins in crits don't work. They just encourage the kamikazi riding of people who don't understand the concept of one line through technical turns.
If I wanted to do this format, I would just go down to the track, which I might do.
I appreciate you taking the time to put on the race, promote the race, & be vocal about it.
Just my opinion...
And I participated in this thread because I ran out of pins to stick in my voodoo dolls of Jesse and Warren.
ZebraMan wrote:
But in any case, this thread was not to justify the race to Warren Geisart, it was to explain the format and rules to the potential participants.
And I, Warren Geissert participated in this thread so that potential participants would have a more thorough understanding of the format being employed by Jess Rafael.
There is nothing difficult for spectators to understand. The first across the line for the final 5 laps are the podium finishers. Period. The decisions that they make along the way are intriguing, but for the non-racer spectator the excitement of the sprint finish is increased five-fold.
The bottom line is that the Napa Gran Prix is made so difficult by virtue of the repeated intervals that the racers may sprint for 5th place just to end the pain.
I can also say that I personally would join a three man break for the promise of a top-five placement, especially knowing that one of my teammates was thus able to rest in the field for one of the final sprints. Two in the top five is a commendable result for any team.
In last year's 35+ 1/2/3 RW&O race (which you missed, Warren), Dean Laberge sat in the field and consciously allowed a five-man break to go away with a sizeable advantage. And yet, he won the race because his strategy paid off. IT WAS THRILLING TO WATCH!
I prefer the reverse win and out to the win & out because it's more tactical and more of a gamble. Also, there's naturally less interest in the subsequent sprints when they are for decreasingly significant placement. And finally, because it makes the most sense for the winner of the final sprint to win the race.
But in any case, this thread was not to justify the race to Warren Geisart, it was to explain the format and rules to the potential participants.
Tempo isn't too bad-just placing the top 1-3 riders each lap. Many of the road Chief Referees have experience scoring these races at the track because they are a common event at the track. And those laps take only about 25 seconds each.
Can you imagine all the fun the officials are going to have with these format?
Jess wrote: "(That's called irony, Warren.)
Here's an example of irony... the person who resurrected reverse win and out at the track last year amidst complaints was.... wait for it... Jess's buddy, Hernando. "Great minds think alike", I guess.
(Sorry, Jess, but you set me up too well for me to pass this up. :D )
I don't agree with a miss and out on the road. I did a couple of them way back, in Somerville, NJ. When the field is smaller than 30-40 riders it works okay because the guys near the front feel threatened so they go fast, but in larger fields the front guys are not threatened early in the race so you end up with a wall of riders at the front and the guys near the back are trying to force their way into holes. Then, when the last rider should be called out of the race there isn't a good way to remove the rider in a reliable way.
Anyway, Jess, I'm all for making races more interesting, and you are trying to do that, and that's a good thing. I just don't agree with this particular way of doing that.
On a short course I think a "tempo" race could work well. In a tempo race, points are awarded to the first 1-3 places across the line on every lap, and the final lap is worth extra points/places. There could also be extra points at the halfway point of the race. Riders who finish with zero points are placed according to the position they're in when they cross the finish line for the final time. This race format strongly encourages breakaways because riders know they can score points even if they are away for just a lap or three, and when there are points available for the field there is a sprint involving the riders close to the front.
As much as it pains me to admit it, Warren is right on track (GET IT?!). Miss and out would be much better, and that course is made it being so short, and with just a short explanation the spectators AND racers can understand it. It is logical fit for RACING go faster and win. And in addition to what Warren stated, I think that what makes a win and out type of format fun is a one (fixed) gear track bike piloted by EXPERIENCED TRACK riders. It takes a different, honed set of skills to ride a fixed gear and try not to be first over the line. Not so difficult on a road bike with brakes though, just squeeze the levers and you go slow.
A crit that you have to purposely hold back in just seems, well, wrong. Isn't a race supposed to be fast at the end?
I really don't care who signs up first, I would sign up for a crit first too if it was what I was best at, maybe we could have the winners of a boxing round robin tournament get a timed head start. You couldn't keep me away!
But I WILL be there to watch and race! WHY?
Can you imagine the crashes when the lower categories lock up the brakes as they try to figure out where they're at place-wise? Fantastic! And the race speeds will be SO slow! Why go fast until the last lap, who cares? Imagine the hi-jinx when a racer doesn't pull out and doesn't care about being disqualified. Have the officials figure that out! Maybe all the riders stop during the last five laps and look at the video and argue who should have been pulled. What happens if you don't pull out because you don't agree or don't hear? You can't register for the next crit? You can't do anymore abnormally formated races?
I can't wait until they bring this format to car races, motorcycle races, and maybe a marathon where the guy who is in the lead at every countdown mile to 26 is eliminated. What excitement!
So, you will not place anyone beyond the top 6 in each race. The folks who care about the places after that will be disappointed, and many will not agree with you that those places don't matter.
Track races have utilized many different formats over the years, but the reverse win and out is rarely used for good reasons. The normal win and out is far more popular, and easier for riders and spectators to understand.
It's strange when the guy(s) who worked hard to form a winning break and still won't get a chance for a win unless there are at least 5 riders, and they stay away during all of the sprint laps. And, if all five places are up the road, at your race there will be nothing left for the pack to do because you won't record their placings. Talk about boring...
Your comment about who registered first is irrelevant because that guy would also tell you that the race you called boring, the points race, is in fact his favorite race of all.
On a short course like the one you're using various points races like "tempo", or "snowball", or normal points race, and versions of them can work well.
As for your comment about "web pundits" being the only ones who will complain... I think they won't be the only ones, as was the case last year when reverse win and out was resurrected at the track.
Ya know Jess, your attitude towards people in this forum who disagree with you could be better than what you display.
I beg to differ with you Warren (AGAIN).
Disincentives??
It is only a disincentive for a break of three if all three are only gunning for the win. Given the sparcity of podiums in most racers' careers, many will see this as an advantage. (Especially the Elite Cat.2's.)
Also, who is to say that no one will bridge to that break of three in the final laps and make it viable for the win?
In fact, logically there is a strong INcentive for breaks in this format. It is more likely that a small break will succeed in this race than in any other format, where they are usually hunted down by the sprinters or their teammates. In this format there is less incentive for the pack to eviscerate a break. Thus, more non-sprinters should use that fact to attack (even if they may be settling for 3rd to 5th place).
It is a disincentive for racers who want a mass gallop pack sprint at the finish of every crit they ride. This format promotes pack safety and rewards the tactical racer.
Why record no further placings? For which sprint? Only the winner of each scored lap is relevant. Unless you are the kind of racer who collects top ten statistics,* the latter finishers in each sprint are equally irrelevant, except when the story is told to their teammates in race reports. But if you are in fact that racer who aims for top tens, you will be exactly the person who will launch a break for a top five, so who is there to complain except web pundits?! (That's called irony, Warren.)
As a track afficianado, Warren, I have to believe you are simply playing devil's advocate. Variety is the spice of life. The track offers many modes of competition, so why should crits always be contested the same way? Two years ago I tried a points race format. Boring. Last year I tried this one. It was so exciting tactically that I was screaming into the mic on the final 20 minutes!!! That's why I'm running it for each category this year.
You may also notice that the preeminent American master track racer of our generation was the first to preregister.
* These are also the same guys who trample over each other in the back of a sprint to get their precious 15th place. Perhaps all races should only score the prize positions?!? A dfiscussion for another thread ...
I hope the reverse win and out format doesn't get repeated because there are too many disincentives. If three riders get away before the sprints begin, they are racing for 3rd, 4th, and 5th place. If one rider gets away before the sprints begin, they are racing for 5th place.
Why will there be no places recorded beyond 5th or 6th place? The final sprint that only rewards the winner will be...