Can I register now for this event next year? I did Cantua and love Velo Promo races but I would like to support larger downtown crits. I hope they become a premier event . . . Yes, $52 is higher than normal but so what? I would like to see bigger productions and would pay for the extra cost. And in a way I like that we support the pros with our fees, it makes us part of their story. Just ask them. They feel taken care of by locals.

This is not a slippery slope. Velo Promo will not double their fees in response. Should we have price fixing and therefore quality fixing?

not really keeping this going.

Any race reports for Merco E3 and P12

please, please, please.....

don't let this thread ever end.

this is more entertaining than just about anything else on the net...

'cept maybe for the original Star Trek reruns.

-

Live long and prosper!

deadhead

two things are certain...

everyone has a very distinct opinion on this topic.

Zebras could race a lot faster if they spent less time ranting and more time training :wink:

Seriously, though, promoters bring different races forward with a unique blend of prestige and racing. Do people gag over paying $80 (give or take) for the boston marathon? No, because it is 26 miles of hallowed ground. Could a trail marathon in the santa cruz mountains pull off that registration cost? No, of course not.

So let them test the market. There are those of us that have money to blow for unique racing experiences. Fine. Some of us will race for $23 and t-shirts and will love it just the same.

Come to think of it, I might be a bit faster if I stop my rant here.

jp

I hate this forum.

Sincerely,

YerMama

ststein wrote:I find it hard to believe that a $52 reg fee kept people away.

Tri California (promoter of the Wildflower triathlon among others) has triple digit reg fees and a lottery system because their events are so oversubscribed. And they donate nothing to a charity after each event.

Race promoters should be allowed to make a profit. And we are fortunate that people are willing to work for free at races. Otherwise $52 would be a bargain.

PS - Jess, your shorts smell bad :D

I agree, I just don't get why promotors should not be able to make a profit. What job do you do? Should we check the integrity of that profession and make sure that your making just enough money to survive? The only thing that should determine the race fee is how many people are willing to pay it. I would have been there but I came down sick. If the promotors were happy with the turnout, expect the fee to stay the same..if they weren't, they need to lower it unless it isn't feasable to do so. I really don't care how much money they make. Do I care how much Leibold makes? Kinda, I hope he is making alot of money and not just scraping by. I feel bad for him when he puts on good races like Orosi and the turnout is just low. He has the experience to know that and I'm sure makes up for it with other races. If he wanted to raise the fees of the less attended races so he isn't losing money..would that mean he has no integrity?

And to touch on the prize money topic. How many amateur sports have you competed in? I've done many, and cycling is the only one that offers any kind of prize money and again..I could care less. If it makes you feel better, at the end of your next race maybe we could have it arranged for someone to give you a cookie.

Which come to think of it..you seem kind of contradictory. Promotors shouldn't be in it for the money, yet your throwing a fit about the lack of PRIZE MONEY...so who is it that is all about the money? hmm...

I find it hard to believe that a $52 reg fee kept people away.

Tri California (promoter of the Wildflower triathlon among others) has triple digit reg fees and a lottery system because their events are so oversubscribed. And they donate nothing to a charity after each event.

Race promoters should be allowed to make a profit. And we are fortunate that people are willing to work for free at races. Otherwise $52 would be a bargain.

PS - Jess, your shorts smell bad :D

in⋅teg⋅ri⋅ty
–noun
1. adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty.
2. the state of being whole, entire, or undiminished: to preserve the integrity of the empire.
3. a sound, unimpaired, or perfect condition: the integrity of a ship's hull.

I am ass-uming Jess is referring to definition #2. Like I said earlier, I don't think the integrity of our sport is threatened simply because one race organizer made an error in judgment by asking for relatively expensive race entry fees for most of the categories.

It was clear from the low turnout that the substantial majority of local riders will not participate in a race with such a high cost vs. benefit ratio, and wise race organizers will be mindful of this.

Quote:be careful using the word integrity mixed with race...It is a word defined using insult....

Interesting. A very positive word used to describe our sport is "defined using insult." I have no way to respond to that, Laurie. Perhaps "fun" is really only the absence of misery.

Everyone gets what they want out of the sport. Every race is fun, or we wouldn't do it. If you don't get that Integrity is a major component of bike racing ... well, hell, I can't really explain it to you. Maybe I'm just more into the history and the ethos of the sport than you seem to be. (I reject that I am, knowing you and your dedication to the sport, so I have to conclude that your response was just rhetorical.)

It's not just about "fun." It's about history, camaraderie, style, suffering, heroism, and ... INTEGRITY.
Nothing negative implied or stated.

Even if it's just about fun, that's cool; lets' hope that it's not just about profit.

That is a hope; not an accusation.

The race was fun. I'll reseve judgement on integrity until the prize money is in our hands. Please....no more registration miles away from the course.

Zebra rants....
Quote:People will drive a long, long way in adverse conditions for no prize money if they feel like they're participating in something .... with integrity. It isn't about gas money or distances or economy. It's about the other thing that makes us love this amazing sport.

The other thing? The other thing to me is fun....
I do not drive to races thinking...gee I am going to attend this race
because it has integrity....I go to races because I am seeking "fun."
In my short time of racing I felt every race held it's integrity.

I attended the San Jose Criterium, and it was a classic race. It was well organized,
a phenomenal support system involved. Results (thanks Jeff) immediate. And with a a decent purse.

I agree with Kevin the weather played a roll and the TOC. The Cantua fields
were not so large. And the weather was cold. Snow was very low.
The weather did affect my choice of venue.

And Snelling? First there is no comparison, Snelling is a veteran race; well known...
And Jess there was no threat of rain during Snelling. There was a threat of showers
and that prediction ended by Wednesday with a temperature of 67; which then I
decided to register.

One thing I know about new races from my observation..... Is that the attendance starts low.
Example.... Chico....which attendance has grown because it is another very fun technical
downtown course. And most recently Warnerville TT (low attendance first race) which by
the way is the most challenging tt course on the NCNCA schedule.

But I am not sure about that now, since the Altamont TTT is a scheduled race which I plan
to attend and have fun.

So Jesse, I agree with Jeff, be careful using the word integrity mixed with race...It is a word defined using insult....

Laurie Fenech

mhernandez wrote: All I see in these complaints are a few bike riders with money moaning about having to spend a couple extra bucks on a race that doesn't pander to their myopic, selfish wants.

JRB431 wrote:

...this is a dismissive overgeneralization. So, everyone who voiced an objection to the entry fee is both (a) affluent and (b) moaning?

Who's really the "myopic" one here?

Interesting reading. Almost identical situation here in TX where a promoter was charging $45 + $8 park entry fee, and $20 if you reg'd day of for a road race. Set off a lot of discussion. While they did get a large turnout, more than one person didn't go strictly for financial reasons. Why?

On a pretty small group ride Sunday I talked to 3 folks who had lost their jobs. One of my training buddies here was in the middle of his sales presentation when a guy from the company he was pitching to looked up from his iPhone and said: "You know your company just went Chapter 11?" One of my teammates is builder with 5 kids who's been sitting on most of his capital in the form of an unsold spec house for the last 12 months. His income stream isn't exactly a torrent, and supposedly we're better off than most here.

Most of those guys are still trying to race here and there because it's one of the things that keeps them sane. They might take issue with the selfish latte drinker smack.

Lotta pain out there right now.

jeffwu wrote:Quote:
This is a sport that prizes integrity. Neither spoiled nor selfish people made that drive or risked their skin for a t-shirt. We did it because Snelling stands for something. It's not about cost or reward, really; it's about expecting the promoters of races to participate in the integrity of the sport. And that means more than just giving us some fun streets to race on, whatever the cost.

However, I find unacceptable that ZebraMan challenges the integrity of good and honest people. Personally, I find that to be the most serious charge anybody can make of another human being.

ZebraMan states that the promoters of the San Jose Classic Criterium have violated the integrity of the sport.

The City of San Jose and Blue Wolf delivered on all of their promises, so I don't understand from where the challenge of the promoters' integrity comes.

In saying that the City of San Jose violated the integrity of the community, ZebraMan has stated that they either lied, manipulated somebody, or took advantage somebody who had no ability to help themselves. None of that happened.

However, I believe that challenging somebody's integrity without such grounds is unacceptable.

Saying $52 is too much is fine. Encouraging people not to enter is fine as well. Challenging the integrity of an honest person is not. I ask ZebraMan to retract what he has said about the character of these people.

I do believe that I have a responsibility to step up when somebody has unfairly attacked another's character.

Wow, Jeff. I don't know what quote of mine you read. It certainly wasn't the one you prefaced your comment with. My comment was in response to Mikey's overboard criticism that we are all "selfish and spoiled" for reacting to the SJCC. My comment was pointing out the contrary, that the racing community will slay themselves to do a distant race for no prizes if the race has integrity, and a hope that race promoters appreciate that quality of our sport, and that which makes it great.

What exactly did I say about the "character of these people" that requires an apology, Jeff?? You certainly didn't quote anything slanderous or even negative. "It's not about cost or reward, really; it's about expecting the promoters of races to participate in the integrity of the sport." My opinion was about the integrity of the sport, and participating in the integrity of the sport. I never, ever, discussed the integrity of these people as human beings.

This was the closest thing to accurate that you said: "ZebraMan states that the promoters of the San Jose Classic Criterium have violated the integrity of the sport." I did not say that they violated its integrity. I praised the sport for that quality and expressed a hope that promoters do not violate it. Whether the promoters of SJCC did or not (or whether anyone cares) is for the racers to decide.

Believe me, I know how and when to accuse someone, and I particularly know better than most how to defend the accused. When it was announced that a donor contributed $2100 to the prize pot, but only a few hundred actually appeared on the prize list, I did not brand anyone a thief, but I did question the apparent discrepancy. But when you say that they "came through on all their promises," that assumption gives me pause. No explanation is due. But c'mon, Jeff; neither is blind faith.

I am not going to apologize for praising the integrity of the sport, nor for encouraging promoters to continue in that spirit. That is what I said.
I am not going to apologize for defending racers who are called "selfish, spoiled and myopic" when some of us react in a racer's forum to a doubling of entry fees and an "unusual" (inequitable?) prize distribution. That is what I did.

I will, however, apologize for my part in "asshatting" this thread, if only to get to appropriate that spanky verb. Nice job, Justin.

There is an unbelievable amount of asshattery going on in this thread. You really couldn't make this stuff up.

ZebraMan wrote:Some people don't like to feel ripped off. The impression that $52 with no 2nd-race discount was offensive to a lot of people,

As Jeff mentioned, people had the choice to race, or not. It's not like it was their only racing option, nor was the race more or less mandatory or so important that you can't skip it, like a State or National Championship where you essentially have to pay whatever the fees are, e.g. $45 per rider for Team Sprint at Nat's.

The free market demonstrated that the perceived cost vs. benefit for this race was too high to generate good participation in the "amateur" fields, so I don't think we have an immediate concern that other promoters will follow the example of the SJ race. Or if they do, they will endeavor to offer a better cost vs. perceived benefit, i.e. benefits that appeal to more people.

When I go into Whole Foods Market and see milk for $5/gallon I think that's ridiculous and I don't buy it there, but I might get some of that nice little cheese that's $10/lb and made in Australia from the milk of happy sheep that only eat organic grasses and take naps in the shade of a Eucalyptus tree...

mhernandez wrote:Quote: All I see in these complaints are a few bike riders with money moaning about having to spend a couple extra bucks on a race that doesn't pander to their myopic, selfish wants.

Made a few good points Mike, but this is a dismissive overgeneralization. So, everyone who voiced an objection to the entry fee is both (a) affluent and (b) moaning?

I've made it through ten years of racing on two bikes, three wheelsets, and two pairs of shoes. For me to spend more than a few hundred dollars a year on race fees and travel expenses is a luxury I cannot afford without cutting too deeply into the family budget. Yet, according to you, I'm a spoiled yuppie because I don't want to spend $52 for a 50 minute crit and happened to state as much on this thread.

Who's really the "myopic" one here?

Quote:
This is a sport that prizes integrity. Neither spoiled nor selfish people made that drive or risked their skin for a t-shirt. We did it because Snelling stands for something. It's not about cost or reward, really; it's about expecting the promoters of races to participate in the integrity of the sport. And that means more than just giving us some fun streets to race on, whatever the cost.

Most will probably recognize me as an official. Therefore, to prevent any questions about my impartiality, I try to keep out of these discussions at all costs. However, I cannot stand for what has gone on here.
I do not challenge a discussion about the price of the race or the prizes handed out. However, I find unacceptable that ZebraMan challenges the integrity of good and honest people. Personally, I find that to be the most serious charge anybody can make of another human being.

ZebraMan states that the promoters of the San Jose Classic Criterium have violated the integrity of the sport. I have observed that they have done nothing but act with the utmost integrity. To me, integrity is about being honest, being up front, not lying or manipulating others, delivering on your promises, and respecting the rights of other people. The City of San Jose and Blue Wolf Events did all of those things. Promoters have make several implied promises when promoting a race. They promise the racers a safe racing environment. They promise the racers an accurate accounting of the results of the race. They promise the racers a race that is run according to a set of rules. Promoters also make some explicit promises. They promise a prize purse to be distributed. They promise amenities that are listed in the flier. As long as the promoter makes good on his promises, I believe that he as acted with integrity.

The City of San Jose and Blue Wolf delivered on all of their promises, so I don't understand from where the challenge of the promoters' integrity comes. If the promoters had not provided a safe situation, then I would understand the cry of foul. However, the course was the most locked down course I have ever seen. The size of the medical response team was probably overkill. If the promoters didn't provide enough officials for clean results and a race determined by the merits, I would point a finger directly at them. However, the promoter gave the officials the ability to keep track of the race, produce clean results, and make sure that the riders conducted their competition in a fair manner. If the promoters promised $500 in prizes and then handed out t-shirts "valued" at $25 each, then I would see a reason to assassinate their character. Alas, all prizes were paid in accordance with the advertised amounts. If the advertisement promised some amenity which was not delivered, there would be an integrity violation. Again, the race provided for all of the normal amenities.

The two promises that are not made for local amateur races are that it will be cheap or that the prize purse will be big (there are some promises at the NRC and UCI level). I think it's great that we have a lot of promoters who do everything to keep entry fees at around $30 and provide good prize packages. However, if somebody wants to charge more or offer a smaller prize purse, they are perfectly within their right to do so. And you have the right to walk away. As long as the people who entered did it with a full understanding of what they would receive, did so under their own free will, and received those things when they did enter, I see no integrity violation there.

I understand everybody's desire to keep racing from becoming prohibitively expensive. However, that is a matter of price, not of character. The City of San Jose may have made a very bad business decision. Seeing the field sizes that they, I think they paid for it. However, charging too much for a product in a market where the consumers have a lot of choice is not a character flaw. In saying that the City of San Jose violated the integrity of the community, ZebraMan has stated that they either lied, manipulated somebody, or took advantage somebody who had no ability to help themselves. None of that happened.

ZebraMan is arguing that there is a promise to keep racing at a certain price. I don't remember anybody making that promise implicitly or explicitly. If we, as a racing community, want to make that a promise, then we should open it up for a structured discussion and outline exactly the parameters for such a promise. However, I believe that challenging somebody's integrity without such grounds is unacceptable.
Saying $52 is too much is fine. Encouraging people not to enter is fine as well. Challenging the integrity of an honest person is not. I ask ZebraMan to retract what he has said about the character of these people.

One thing I must clarify is that I was the Chief Referee of the San Jose Classic Criterium. I have a working relationship with the promoters. However, I do not believe that anybody would challenge me on facts I have presented here (although some may about the conclusions). I believe that my response to such an action would be the same if I were not in such a position. I feel no need to maintain the popularity of the race or the promoters. However, I do believe that I have a responsibility to step up when somebody has unfairly attacked another's character.

Quote:It's not about cost or reward, really; it's about expecting the promoters of races to participate in the integrity of the sport.

uh huh.

The SJ Crit was part of an event weekend. It had costs far and above just the crit itself, which alone must have been substantial since they didn't just toss up a few measley cones and a roll of orange fencing in some corporate park.

They shut down that entire area. They barricaded 100% of the race course. They had cops, they had a crapload of volunteers (with shirts that had to be paid for ...).

This wasn't a small corporate park crit, this was an event weekend with budgetary needs and municipality agreement.
.

Your concerns are precedent and integrity?

Fine, your voice is heard that you don't want to pay $52 for a superbly put on crit. Point taken. You want to keep down costs for other races in our region, fine - again, point taken. Precedent fighting? - acknowledged.

But you do realize that promoting an event beyond corporate crits and backwater races takes MORE than just a club willing to volunteer hours. It takes municipality buy-in. It takes for-profit promotion companies that can partner with municipalities ... IF they've bought in.

All that takes money.

Integrity? Whatever.

All I see in these complaints are a few bike riders with money moaning about having to spend a couple extra bucks on a race that doesn't pander to their myopic, selfish wants.

integrity ... sure.

mhernandez wrote:Quote:oh man ... hilarious. just too hilarious. what a perfect illustration of the point.

kudos, kcox ... you couldn't have more clearly demonstrated what's wrong with this entire thread - cyclists complaining about paying $52 for a race when they spend more than that on a week's worth of lattes, or a 'night out with a few ladies,' ... or, a zoot trainer session with VR boys as they measure the length of each others' wattage outputs.

what a spoiled, selfish lot we are.

ridiculous.

I don't think there's anything "wrong" with this thread, Mikey. In fact, it appears to have influenced the promoter to add some prize money to the "other" fields. (That is, "other" than the one you joined).

There is nothing wrong with the community of racers discussing their perceptions of races. And I am quite sure that no one who responded to this thread or voted in the poll really gave a damn about the $25 difference between SJ Crit and most of the other races, or the absence of a meager cash prize. It is PRINCIPLE and PRECEDENT that people are reacting and responding to.

Some people don't like to feel ripped off. The impression that $52 with no 2nd-race discount was offensive to a lot of people, even those who can afford to spend thousands for carbon fiber or SRM's. It is a matter of principle, which is important to some people, and at least worth discussion.

And it's a matter of the precedent that this act of inflation could have on present and future races. The ski lift ticket analogy and the triathlon analogy are perfectly fitting. The racing community are consumers, and as such we are entitled to react collectively and attempt to influence the trends and future of this sport.

Mikey, there is nothing "wrong" with these discussions. No one is selfish or spoiled for responding negatively to a 100% hike in race fees or an inexplicable absence of reward, notwithstanding what we pay for our race equipment.

Meanwhile, 120 pro/1/2's and 100 3's and hundreds of masters drove hours to Snelling to kick each others' asses for 5 x $5 t-shirts, notwithstanding weather reports threatening rain.

This is a sport that prizes integrity. Neither spoiled nor selfish people made that drive or risked their skin for a t-shirt. We did it because Snelling stands for something. It's not about cost or reward, really; it's about expecting the promoters of races to participate in the integrity of the sport. And that means more than just giving us some fun streets to race on, whatever the cost.

G--dd--m, I must still be tired out from that slamfest at Snelling. I can't even think of any jolly jibes, biting barbs or ridiculous rhetoric to deflate my stiff Monday Morning didacticisms. What a bore, Zebra.

Quote:That rumor is correct. Due to the threat of rain I decided to go out and party on Friday night which is my normal habit when rain looks like it will ruin the morning ride. Had a very late night out in Oakland (Lake Merrit) with a few ladies and some other friends.

Ironically the rain didn't start until the House of Pain ride would have been over... go figure. So I downloaded a 11mi Hilly TT course from the VR league I patronize when the weather gets bad and put down some 370Watts, avg on my http://www.tacxvr.com trainer for 30minutes.... and then another 347w for 50min on a 40k TT course the next day...

hahaahhaahahahaaaaa.

but, you didn't include what car you drove.

-
oh man ... hilarious. just too hilarious. what a perfect illustration of the point.

kudos, kcox ... you couldn't have more clearly demonstrated what's wrong with this entire thread - cyclists complaining about paying $52 for a race when they spend more than that on a week's worth of lattes, or a 'night out with a few ladies,' ... or, a zoot trainer session with VR boys as they measure the length of each others' wattage outputs.

what a spoiled, selfish lot we are.

ridiculous.

homsie wrote:kcox920 wrote:

Don't believe that weather hype. I'm one of the 1000 3's that turned their nose up at this race too, in fact I think my whole team did, not sure though.
-kieran

Hey Kieran,

What did you do that day instead? Rumor is that you didn't do the HOP ride because of the threat of rain! :P

James

That rumor is correct. Due to the threat of rain I decided to go out and party on Friday night which is my normal habit when rain looks like it will ruin the morning ride. Had a very late night out in Oakland (Lake Merrit) with a few ladies and some other friends.

Ironically the rain didn't start until the House of Pain ride would have been over... go figure. So I downloaded a 11mi Hilly TT course from the VR league I patronize when the weather gets bad and put down some 370Watts, avg on my http://www.tacxvr.com trainer for 30minutes.... and then another 347w for 50min on a 40k TT course the next day... (too bad that power gets eaten up moving my 93kg body around....)

Lately I'm a fair weather racer, especially when i have such nice training equipment at home that hands out harsh beatings in short period of time. Nonetheless, the rain isn't why that race failed (on the amateur level). The reasons for that are fairly easy to see in this thread and think about.

I was up at the Golden State Crit last year in the rain (or was it the other one of those Sac races...don't remember which now), and despite that race being OVER AND HOUR away from the bay area, they had a really good turnout to race a technical course in the rain. So rain wasn't it people.

btw, after seeing the carnage at that race (and abandoning for fear of becoming part of it)...i decided it too dangerous to race crits in the rain, just begging for trouble. However, there are many more brazen/dieHard racers out there than me, certainly more than the field of 9 or so E3s that showed up in San Jose....home to one of the largest bicycle clubs in the STATE, and a velodrome...

-kieran

kcox920 wrote:

Don't believe that weather hype. I'm one of the 1000 3's that turned their nose up at this race too, in fact I think my whole team did, not sure though.
-kieran

Hey Kieran,

What did you do that day instead? Rumor is that you didn't do the HOP ride because of the threat of rain! :P

James

I also thought the San Jose Classic events were
well organized, safe and very fun. Registration went smoothly, although I do prefer SBO.
I was there prior the KOM ride and not only felt the excitement from the cyclists,
(over 100), ready to climb Sierra (like the pros), but also I witnessed an impressive
group of police staff who organized the ride through town. The city of San Jose
made a huge effort to make it all safe. I loved the fact the streets were closed
at least a block prior the criterium course, especially in a large city, which is safe for the racers and a warning for the
community members; who happen to shop and walk through the neighborhood.
It was an extremely well organized and safe event, and thank you to the organizers
and to the city of San Jose for a very fun day.

I do agree with Michael about the twilight idea, and although I do
agree the event would be a successful professional event, I still like
the idea of the amateurs (like me) having an opportunity to race an exciting and technical downtown course.
I would suggest the KOM event is on a separate day from the criterium races or
scheduled so all criterium participants have an opportunity to
race the event. And I would suggest the organizers get ideas from either the Mt Tam Hill climb
promoter http://www.californiaroadclub.org/ or the San Bruno Hill climb promoter http://www.peninsulavelo.org/ to better organize the KOM event to separate the
category racers from the recreational racers to keep it safe.

There were ample restaurants, bakeries and grocery stores, gas stations available nearby. Free parking at the lots, and located in the city center where all the museums were located. I loved it.

Lastly, I want to compliment Tom Simpson for excellent
commentating through out all races. He makes the race exciting for every one involved because
the guy does his homework and knows the racers and has knowledge about race. He adds to the
fun to the race spirit, indeed.

So to the community of San Jose (975,000), administrators, organizers, promoters and the volunteers a big thank you for the opportunity for all bicyclists; either recreational, amateur or professional to enjoy the sport at your city.

Laurie Fenech

ZebraMan wrote:KM, wouldn't you have done the pro race for the $$$, given the options presented? That's what Hernando did, rather than spend $52 to race for "community service credits" in the masters.

None of this discussion related to the two pro fields, which were more-than-adequately compensated.

p.s. - I do wash regularly. With soap, usually.

There was cash in the masters race, in addition to the Sportsbasement GC.
But only for top 3 I think.

I don't race for cash, but if I win cash in the masters and haven't already
entered the P/1/2, I usually do since it's like playing with the house's
money.

I also thought the event was very well run and would do it again.

I raced the p1/2 event because Sabine and I did a valentine's dirt ride down in Fort Ord that morning. If the masters race would have been in the afternoon, i probably would have raced both - just because the event was awesome.

Kudos to San Jose for an incredibly safe, but challenging course. The announcing was fantastic (thanks again, Pilarcitos Tom) and the crowds for the men's and women's events were super into the racing ... even with one of the most popular events in California cycling history but a short drive away (ToC prologue).

And, it's worth noting that there were a ton of non-racing cyclists participating in the other event put on in conjunction with the crit. That's so good to see. Racers are but a SMALL part of the population of cyclists, and we appreciate what the San Jose Classic did for those non-racers.

Overall, the San Jose Classic had a great atmosphere and was certainly one of the best run, safest, yet most technically challenging races I've done in northern California.

My recommendation for the event would be to put all of the resources into making it a professional race. I could see this course being PERFECT for a twilight or night time criterium. I point anyone involved in the promotion of the San Jose Crit to the massive crowds that show up for events like the Athens Criterium (http://www.athenstwilight.com/). That race is the main component of a festival that draws in thousands of folks to their area and I could definitely see the San Jose Classic growing into such a spectacle, if resources and vision were available.

Promoters might also consider the idea of live-web broadcasting of the event to draw in advertising dollars.

Again, thanks to those who promoted the San Jose Criterium. It was a blast and please feel free to contact those involved with the regional bike racing scene for more input or suggestions (http://ncnca.org/docs/contact/#officers).

Michael Hernandez

KM, wouldn't you have done the pro race for the $$$, given the options presented? That's what Hernando did, rather than spend $52 to race for "community service credits" in the masters.

None of this discussion related to the two pro fields, which were more-than-adequately compensated.

p.s. - I do wash regularly. With soap, usually.

kcox920 wrote:
Wow! :shock: The community has spoken! Promoter's take heed, $52 entry fees and no prizes will *not* *be* *tolerated*.

-kieran

While I don't disagree that the entry fee had some effect, I am sure that they lost some racers to the ToC. I would bet that a large number of riders who might otherwise have raced (even with the high entry fee) went and watched the ToC prologue in Sac.

My my POV, I probably would have done it if the weather looked good a day or two out. But weather was dicey and I decided to stay home and do my normal Sat. training ride.

WarrenG wrote:Pre-reg numbers as of Wednesday afternoon...

Crit = 155

Pro Cat 1/2 Men = 43
Pro Cat 1/2 Women = 34

Cat 3 Men = 11
Cat 3 Women = 2

Cat 4/5 Men = 33
Cat 4 Women = 1

Masters Men (total) = 28
Masters Women (total) = 2

Wow! :shock: The community has spoken! Promoter's take heed, $52 entry fees and no prizes will *not* *be* *tolerated*.

In the future when putting on a new race it might be wise to first do a little research with the community, via boards and clubs to figure out what people are willing to pay.

Don't believe that weather hype. I'm one of the 1000 3's that turned their nose up at this race too, in fact I think my whole team did, not sure though.

Zebra man didn't do the race any harm. It's fate was sealed from the start by irrational exuberance, somewhat like our sobering credit card drunk economy. Perhaps next time a bit of practicality will sit in the driver's seat. $52 was flat out stupid, and the results of the race show that.

-kieran

Here's the good news for future San Jose downtown crits, or for other municipalities who Tom is concerned might somehow be concerned about this Forum thread:

Future organizers can reproduce the 7 pages of this Forum and clearly demonstrate that the low SJClassic turnout was not a lack of interest in a San Jose race, but rather the reaction of the racing community to certain decisions of this particular promoter in regards to this particular race.

As for the effect of the Forum discussion, I do not believe this thread had any direct connection to the absence of racers; I believe the views expressed were merely representative of the decisions made privately by the majority of racers.

I did not want the San Jose Classic to fail. I wanted them to set a more reasonable rate for entry, and to offer a more realistic prize package. I hope that they understand that those decisions were 1. an errant evaluation of what the market would bear, and 2. a PR failure. I agree that the event could be (and should be) very popular in the future, given better decision-making. Certainly more reliance on sponsorship income and less profiting on the entry fee / prize outlay ratio would be the wiser PR move.

As for Cantua, it was a great race in the 45's! Great field, great action, great result.

People will drive a long, long way in adverse conditions for no prize money if they feel like they're participating in something .... with integrity. It isn't about gas money or distances or economy. It's about the other thing that makes us love this amazing sport.

CPhipps wrote:Where is everybody?

I'm watching the W4 race right now, only 5 entries. Sonia Klein just won.

There were 11 starters in the elite 3s with 9 finishers.

There were 20 finishers in the 35+/45+.
13 35+.

I liked the course and won enough cash to enter the P/1/2.

I'll post some more results.
Thanks for sharing the info.
Fifteen women in the cat 4 race at Cantua Creek, only four cat p12 men, and someone told me sixty cat 4 men but I thought there were only thirty, the other women's field looked pretty big, too.

sounds like people voted with their feet (and wallets).

sucks because san jose may read this as a lack of interest in the sport and we may lose this venue for next year. hopefully there are lessons learned that all promoters can use to strengthen other local events.

i just hope people take a hard look and don't blame the weather (or this forum) for the low turnout

Where is everybody?

I'm watching the W4 race right now, only 5 entries. Sonia Klein just won.

There were 11 starters in the elite 3s with 9 finishers.

There were 20 finishers in the 35+/45+.
13 35+.

I liked the course and won enough cash to enter the P/1/2.

I'll post some more results.

sjbc used to have its crit downtown, practically the same course, but when the club continued to LOSE money each year from the rising costs of permits, police officers and other fees, they decided to move it.

i be up for racing downtown again, but i wouldn't feel comfortable about charging $52 per race.

Pre-reg numbers as of Wednesday afternoon...

Crit = 155

Pro Cat 1/2 Men = 43
Pro Cat 1/2 Women = 34

Cat 3 Men = 11
Cat 3 Women = 2

Cat 4/5 Men = 33
Cat 4 Women = 1

Masters Men (total) = 28
Masters Women (total) = 2

izoard wrote:T
I wonder what the reaction from the City of San Jose (promoters of the event - they contracted Frosty and crew to run their race) will be for future club-based cycling events after the thrashing they have taken on this forum?
Before I go scuba diving in a new locale I always seek out the advice of a local diver or someone else who is familiar with the area and the environmental conditions.

Humans are not the top of the pyramid on this planet. Read what you want from this statement but don't bother answering, except to yourself.

This horse has been beaten to death. Positions have been well established. Opinions of all sides have been presented.

I wonder what the reaction from the City of San Jose (promoters of the event - they contracted Frosty and crew to run their race) will be for future club-based cycling events after the thrashing they have taken on this forum?

I wonder what other municipalities will think if a cycling club approaches them for permission to use and shut off their streets to hold a bike race after the experience in San Jose?

I wonder about a lot of things...

Tom Simpson

My reasons for going to the San Jose Crit are in a post i did this morning (for any interested):
http://norcalcyclingnews.com/2009/02/13/san-jose-classic-gotta-go/

I'm of the opinion for giving this race a chance. I really don't cringe at paying $52 for a crit, but it's not something I could afford to do a ton of. And I never go to a race because of/or the lack of prizes.
-

One thing i'd point out is that this poll only had 53 respondents, so there are no valid conclusions on what our racing community thinks about the price of the entries or the amount of prizes offered for the event (i believe that's what this thread was originally about).

The proof will be in the pudding on Saturday:

1. how many riders will race
2. how well will the race be put on

I'll be interested to find out.

-
and Jess, i wasn't trying to be funny about your smell. It wasn't a joke ... you really are quite odiferous.
m

bflite wrote:Any promoter that says they're putting on a race for purely altruistic reasons ('so people can race') is a liar. Part of the deal is making a profit.

I've worked on a lot of races, and beyond the free pizza and that kind of thing it's just been so the races happened. Any net has gone back into the race, or out as a donation, or into the rained-out-race reserves. Heck we even had a couple years where a member loaned money to pay the race bills, paid back in better years. Making a profit isn't really the point. I just think of it as a club's duty - the races are there because clubs put them on. (And if you have a profit you need to worry about what you're going to do with it which to me just isn't worth the hassle.)

Of course if crits all start being $52 and the reason is that every other club in the universe is making bank on their event (so their members can go race $52 crits) I guess I'd revisit that.

I agree about the fundraiser part - make donations at a fundraiser, or do a bike race, why mix the two? Though you often need a "fundraiser" hook to get a permit at all so some money to that is part of the deal. But if there's a high entry fee and it's chalked up to it being a fundraiser, I want to see numbers afterward, from the alleged donees. That's all I'll say about that one.

-Tad

No, Justin. I don't respond to criticism of "my tone" by saying that my points are valid; I believe that my points are valid regardless of my tone, which is simply for impact and occasional comedic emphasis. Some get it, some appreciate it, some don't. And some people can only respond by attempting to belittle the author rather than rebut or discuss the message. So be it.

For example:

Quote:Also Jesse, dude..... I am a kindergarten teacher, you are welcome to spend time in my class and get reacquainted with your public manners, I certainly know my kindergarten students will teach you a few lessons on the subject.

respectfully,
Laurie Fenech

Interesting finale, or was it irony? I don't need "public manners" to pen a criticism on a Forum. I don't believe that kindergartners make the most effective ombudsmen, journalists or pundits. But I do believe that even 5 year olds would have a problem with a promise of prizes going unfulfilled and unexplained. Oh yeh, you bet they would!

Look - I made no pretense of my "tone" from the very title of this thread. I was not and am not happy with this inflation of race fees and the contemptuous absence of even a gesture at recompense. There is far more florid and bad-mannered expression in my lexicon, but I've chosen not to employ it to stay on-message.

As for the sarcastic TP references, they are an attempt to mix commentary with comedy. Excuse me my trespass. On that subject, may I also say that I don't believe that I smell quite as foul as Mikey Hernandez accused in his recent feint at humor.
(Miss Manners must have napped through that particular post).

I love how you spend endless hours talking smack and as soon as someone says they don't appreciate your tone, you bounce back with "my points are valid."

Maybe you should consider using a little more respect if you want the validity to shine through. I can't believe I'm saying this to someone who is probably twice my age.

Anyway, yeah it's expensive. But I just learned one of the added perks at this race will be drug testing.

I don't know if that cost the promoters extra, but I'll pay extra for it any day. We need to see more of it.

All kidding aside, Laurie ...

Your students can clearly add their numbers better than the organizers of this Classic Ripoff.

This Forum exists to share opinions. Mine are valid, and seem to share wide agreement among the readers. When I made a mistake in my original message, I corrected it and apologized. If I have hurt this race by my creation of this thread, it was only by pointing out the perceived deficiencies that exist in this race. 83 replies, 53 pollings and 4700 views later, the organizers of this race may have learned something about what they can and cannot get away with. (But based on what I pointed out one post above, it appears not to be so.)

But in the same spirit as that placating e-mail you received, I suppose we will have to wait until next year to find out exactly what they've learned.

Quote:Therefore, we are pleased to receive emails, such as yours, which will provide us insight for the development of future events. When I established the fees for the events, I did not arrange a “multiple category-based fee” for individuals competing in the criterium. However, I have made note to address a “multiple-category based fee” for future criteriums organized by our office.

My intentions to forward the letter was to
inform readers from this thread; the director's reasoning
for not discounting 2nd race. It is an overlook, very common to
new race promoters. Mistakes happen, and as racers we make the choice to support or not.

Did anyone else write to find out why?

And yes to run a race in San Jose is expensive, perhaps with the price of 52.00, it could be designed as a twilight mid week race to happen on the (stage 3 of toc). That would be exciting.

I like reading suggestions other than complaints. I also like to find out information from the source before complaining publicly.

As for acting appropriate Jess? hmmmmm.
I understand you are a race promoter, but I do not understand your intentions creating this thread, which has created some public hardship for this particular race. Sure I'll help with PR, especially for a new race. The women's field options are great. I am supporting that. I like downtown races, I am grateful we have a new venue to race.
The cost expensive; yes. But as a female racer getting an option to race a crit twice with peers is very limited, so I feel a need to support and to encourage females to do the same.

Also Jesse, dude..... I am a kindergarten teacher, you are welcome to spend time in my class and get reacquainted with your public manners, I certainly know my kindergarten students will teach you a few lessons on the subject.

respectfully,
Laurie Fenech

This isn't possible. Really -- it just is NOT POSSIBLE!!!

Remember this?

Quote:Last week or so, Webcor approached their cycling-mad buddies at ClickSafety.com about the amateur prize money issue, and ClickSafety.com put up $2100.00 for the amateur categories.

Okay, now check out the latest prize update on the "Classic" website:

http://sanjoseclassic.com/01/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=23&Itemid=16

Zebras don't add as well as horses, but don't these pitiful table-scraps add up only to $1250?!?

No wait -- The cash prizes for the amateur fields are only $650!!!

Please pass the Charmin, I need to recheck their calculations. Wecor, did your gracious $1450 bailout get lost in the perforations of the "Classic's" balance sheet?

Where IS the PR guy when they really need him???

ZebraMan wrote:
I will be far more impressed to learn how much of the $104 that Laurie is paying to race twice actually goes to one of those charities.

Exactly (wow - I'm agreeing with the Zebra - he's not such a beast after all!). If one of the reasons for the high fee is the support of deserving charities, I'd be a little more willing if I could write a tax-deductible donation to something that would also allow me entry to the race. At least there might then be some (small) justification.

Okay, I've waited long enough. A couple of thoughts:

Quote:Might want to do a little homework of your own before you shoot the messenger, there...

Laurie is one of those people who makes the mentor programs happen & who helps get & keep people (particularly women) in the sport. She was sharing information she got from the promoter, and if you read her second message alongside her first it seems to me that she's particularly encouraging people who don't often get to race against their peers to come out for this one.

Also, being able to race that second race for $5 is a great privilege offered to a (rather large) handful of people. It's not a requirement for promoters. As Beth pointed out in another thread, it can mean a big hit for the promoter even with full fields. And if you're really worried about the recession you probably shouldn't be racing an expensive road bike in a technical crit in the rain, anyway...

No one is dissing Laurie here, Elis. I love and appreciate her as much as anyone. There was a shovel full of PR crap in that e-mail she received, and I myself would have expressed disapprobation upon receiving and forwarding it. (But Laurie is a nice person and I'm ... something else.)

Quote:When I established the fees for the events, I did not arrange a “multiple category-based fee” for individuals competing in the criterium. Therefore for this year’s criterium, if you intend to race twice, the entry fee must be paid twice. However, I have made note to address a “multiple-category based fee” for future criteriums organized by our office.

Now I am certain that Casey would not object to the San Jose Classic refunding some of the $104 that Laurie and other two-race-people had to pay. But that she doesn't offer.
Although I am mildly reassured that she "made note to address" the fee in the future, I'd be more assured if she told me it was written on double-ply tissue.

But maybe the race organizers aren't aware of the extreme reaction that their usurious race fees have caused in the local race community?
Quote:In the interests of full disclosure, my company, O2 Sports Marketing, was recently retained by SJCC to help them with PR. I don't have answers to the technical questions. Kendra Wenzel does if you can get hold of her - she's busy, busy, busy!

Paul Skilbeck

Oops. The PR guy for the "Classic" knows how to read and react to issues on the Forum. And although he posits no justification for the exhorbitant race fee issues that are the title message of this thread, the subject of a lopsided poll and six pages of posts, he is right on the ball responding about Active.com's publication of start lists -- at least insofar as he can direct you to the person who is too busy to talk to you.

Quote:Last week or so, Webcor approached their cycling-mad buddies at ClickSafety.com about the amateur prize money issue, and ClickSafety.com put up $2100.00 for the amateur categories.

For this I am most grateful to ClickSafety.com, and to whomever did the work to approach them. And I am eminently satisfied to believe that this Forum and this thread may have helped to influence the organizers of SJCC to find a sponsor to help allay the complaints of the racing community.
PERHAPS THIS FORUM DOES HAVE A PURPOSE AFTER ALL.

While I am indeed impressed that the SJCC has listed as beneficiaries "Fit for Learning, Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition and Leukemia & Lymphoma Society's Team In Training," I will be far more impressed to learn how much of the $104 that Laurie is paying to race twice actually goes to one of those charities.

Elis wrote:

Laurie is one of those people who makes the mentor programs happen....

No disrespect to Laurie; I know how hard she works. I was just pointing out that this thread (I think) was about the difficulty of supporting a race with such a high price.

Elis wrote:
And if you're really worried about the recession you probably shouldn't be racing an expensive road bike in a technical crit in the rain, anyway...

I'd probably be more worried about my health. But glad to know that there are racers who can afford to trash expensive bikes......

Tammy.....TURNIPSEED?

really?

:shock:

richierich2u wrote:One suggestion regarding losing money by discounting 2nd race is to initially put the 2nd race on the wait list till some pre determined time to allow first comers to get in, then once the date passes, you confirm the 2nd racers.

That's a good suggestion, however for races that use SBO for registration, the wait list is a manual process. When folks are moved from the wait list into a field, SBO does this with a phone call. It's a bummer that wait listing isn't automatic, and it's probably just a software limitation. But at this point, it's probably not possible to do what you suggest automatically.

One suggestion regarding losing money by discounting 2nd race is to initially put the 2nd race on the wait list till some pre determined time to allow first comers to get in, then once the date passes, you confirm the 2nd racers.