From my experience, I never noticed much of a difference from 4's to 3's but keep in mind that I haven't raced with the 3's seriously since 1998 and was mainly a crit. guy. My take has always been that the speeds where not much different but maybe a little more consistent. The crashes and the sketchy riding was still there. In fact, I was getting caught up in crashes at least 3 times a year minimum. The biggest difference I noticed was the number of guy's going for it at the end. In the 4's it seemed like the finishes always came down to 5-7 guy's going for it. In the 3's however, that number jumped up to around 15-20 which makes bike handling, pack riding and just common sense when it comes to racing all that more important. I myself did not upgrade until I was consistently placing in the top ten and had won some races. Upon entering 3's, I was back placing in the top ten almost every race within 2 races. They guy's I knew that upgraded with out that consistency ended up being pack filler and never really sniffed the top ten again. My opinion is that they moved up too with out ever learning how to race their bikes. That being said, I think upgrades need to be based on points and not experience. Riders need to put int the time and gain the necessary experience needed to be successful in the next category. I also believe that if you can't ride and place with the strongest in your category, you are probably not ready for the next category. Just my thoughts.
Kyle Clinton

As I said by the time a rider is a Cat 3 they hopefully have enough pack experience so that if they get some upgrade points based primarily based on their performance in a TT in a stage race it isn't as big of an issue. Hopefully by the time a rider has worked their way through the 4s via Crits and RRs they hopefully have a certain minimal level of pack skills. In practice this isn't always true but that is the theory about not using GC results for Cat 4s.

Based on the fact that so many more upgrade points are available in road races I think USAC would prefer riders concentrate on road racing. No world championships for Crit racing and not many top international level racers with a heavy Crit focus.

Sorry again but your 4th place over doesn't count as one of your top 10s.

So I'm a little confused, aren't the Cat 3 and above races also pretty much just decided by ITT times? And they get points. All I have to do is look at the results and know that this is the case.

I'm not arguing because my guess is by the end of the year I'll have my points to upgrade anyway, but it was an awful lot of work out there for no points. Also, the upgrade rules as they stand encourage 4's to just focus on winning the crit or road race and not really the overall, don't you think?

Lastly, although you said my 3rd in the ITT doesn't count toward my 10 top 10's, does my overall 4th count?

Just wondering.

To many short stage races like Madera (and a lot of other 2 or 3 day stage races ) are basically decided in the TT stage. In a lot of cases a strong TT rider can win the TT and then as long as they can hang onto the main pack in the RR and Crit they can either win the stage race or get a very high finish.. Giving Cat 4s upgrade points based on stage race GC in these situations is basically upgrading someone pretty much on their TT results. By the time someone has gotten into the 3s we hope that they have enough pack skills ( which isn't always the case) so that upgrading with the help of TT results isn't such an issue.

Sorry but you can't use TT results to count towards the 10 top 10 finishes you need to upgrade by experience.

Just curious, why aren't overalls in stage races counted toward 4 to 3 upgrades? I'm hoping Casey, as well as others who've been around for years can shed some light for me.

I'm a Cat 4 master's (and I use that term loosely) racer. So far this year I've placed in 35+ 4/5's races (4th at Snelling, 8th at Merced Crit, 2nd at Hanford) and Elite 4's (8th at Merco Crit, God bless you Matt, 11th at Hanford). I just wound up getting 3rd in the 35+ 4/5 ITT at Madera and 4th overall there (29th in crit and 19th in the road race), but no upgrade points???

I know there's got to be some reason why we don't get points for an overall performance, but I can't figure out why. And yes, the 4's have definitely gotten tougher and tougher.

Also, Casey or anyone else, can I use my 4th in overall placing and 3rd in the ITT at Madera as counting toward my 10 top 10's?

Just lookin' for some help. Cheers ladies and gents.

After reading the 3 screenfuls of posts on this topic, it seems odd that no one voiced concern about the fear that I would have with the "pack finishes upgrade rule":

As a career Cat 4, juggling a career, commuting, business travel, running a bike team, training, etc.--it is really great to have an excuse for not upgrading to Cat 3. I can always tell people how difficult it is to upgrade and how our district is way more intense than the others, etc. . If Casey were to start upgrading riders based on pack finishes, I'd look foolish for hanging back in the Cat 4s.

Thanks Casey for not adopting that guideline!

:)

You thought she was gone but YerMama is back. I know there are many so-called reasons other than 'status' for upgrading. Personally, it makes no difference to me when and why a rider upgrades. But... you need to EARN it. Those with issue on this subject in general seem like guys who can't quite get the point requirement or are in a hurry for one reason or another want premature blessing from Casey. In my not so humble opinion, if you are close to the line, you are not across it. And hence, do not deserve to move up. By trying to get in by any other means than what is stated in the rule book or whatever guidelines(NCNCA alternate point system) Casey has used consistently, you are undermining the work and accomplishment of every rider that has acheived upgrade through these paths. I agree, you are most likely more than capable of riding competitively in the next category. But you have to prove it. And racing is about results. I would venture to say alot of the guys commenting on this subject are also bantering about the results topics on this forum as well. Despite your ability to ride in the pack, work for your teammates, or whatever, if you can't get results, you do not deserve upgrade.

Nobody likes hearing that they're not good enough and believe it or not, that is not my intention in this message. You CAN do it. So stop looking for the loophole and make it happen.

Thanks for reading.

One HUGE reason to upgrade if you are 30+ is to qualify for Nationals, which this year saw filling up as quickly as the 4/5s do here. Bragging rights shouldn't be minimumized when you have the right to race against the best in the country.

I ugraded as soon as I had 10 top ten finishes in 2001. It was right after Masters District Crit, where I finished 20th. No regrets either,even though I've only had one top ten since then. I still can and have effected the outcome of many a race. That's racing!

Fear Itself wrote: If you just want to upgrade so you can say "Look at me, i'm a Cat3" then isn't it kind of an empty accomplishment?

While I agree that the racing is plenty good in the 4's, there is another reason some racers (especially us masters) might want to upgrade. If you are a Master 4 and want to race, you have to be really on top of the race schedule. For example- I registered for Snelling 2 weeks ahead of time and ended up 22nd on the waiting list. There is a similar situation with Wente. There are just so many 4s and 5s in this area that races fill up really fast. I agree that if you are finishing in the pack as a 4 there isn't much hope that you will do any better as a 3. But, since the Masters 123's tend to have fewer racers and larger field limits, guys who don't want to register a month ahead of time (and still race with guys their own age) can still get in. If they can finish with the pack in the 4s, they will probably be capable of finishing in the pack with the 3s- although, those guys go real fast.

Of course, a possible solution to this is to just split the master's 4/5s into separate fields and combine another group? but i think that was a discussion on another thread...

i guess my point is that not all 4s who want to upgrade are looking for the status, just the option to not have to register a month before the race...

just playing devil's advocate...

tim

I just recently upgraded based on points and chose not to upgrade earlier based on top 10s. I'd have to say that i'd be disappointed if this new rule were utilized in our district. There's nothing wrong with racing as a Cat4 as the racing, especially this season, has been fast and positive. If you don't believe me, just check out how the best Cat4s have done once they've visited the 3s for the first time over the last year or so:

Salvador Borrego-Crum: 1st place at Patterson Pass Road Race (first Cat3 race)

Ben Albracht: 1st Place at Winters Road Race (first Cat3 race)

Zack Sober: 1st Place at Merced Crit (first Cat3 race)

Criston DeWann: 1st Place at Sausalito Crit (first Cat3 race)

Petro Hizalev: 1st Place at Ward's Ferry (first Cat3 race)

These are just the first place finishes and just the ones I know about off the top of my head. The 4s are f/kn fast! What is the point of upgrading if you can't even finish near the front of the pack in the 4s? Part of the point of being a Cat3 is the right of passage that says "Yes, the 4s are tough, but I worked hard and made the grade." Finishing "in the pack" of a Cat4 race carries no such distinction. If you just want to upgrade so you can say "Look at me, i'm a Cat3" then isn't it kind of an empty accomplishment?

Just my 3 cents.

But always remember that, to quote the wonderful Ralph Waldo Emerson, "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." :wink:

[

If you look in the USAC rule book it says upgrade guidelines. The Local Associations are allowed some latitude in the upgrade process such as the alternative point system for Cat 3 to 2 upgrades.

Perhaps you could apply that logic to my Cat 2 upgrade since you keep using the "Rule Book" as the reason for denying it.

Smells like inconsistancy to me.

Ron

phatphong wrote:I wonder if the ridiculously strong cat4 contingency is due to riders not upgrading.

Well there is one guy who was a cat 2 last year who is a cat 4 this year and he's *not* winning everything he enters, only about half of what he enters.

SWoo wrote:I came up with 24 for Mark Patten two weeks ago. Perhaps I made a mistake, anyways, he has some points that start going stale this week so he doesn't have to upgrade unless he improves on his results from last year.

I only find 19 current points for Mark, although he has placings going back to 2004 those are outside the 12 month window. Also I could be missing a race from my upgrade database or maybe Steve counted a race that didn't meet the Min distance or field.

I came up with 24 for Mark Patten two weeks ago. Perhaps I made a mistake, anyways, he has some points that start going stale this week so he doesn't have to upgrade unless he improves on his results from last year.

I just did a review of race results for the past 12 months. I only found 1 rider who had more points than was needed ( 22 points) to qualify for an upgrade to Cat 3 who hasn't asked for an upgrade yet. Now there could be someone from last year who has more than enough points who hasn't asked for an upgrade yet but so far the riders who have been placing this year don't fit into the sandbagger category as far as I can see.

I always hear lots of complaints about sandbaggers ( ie people with lots of upgrade points who refuse to upgrade) but there is little evidence to support this is actually going on. Some people seem to think that any strong rider in a lower category is sandbagging no matt how many upgrade points that rider has. I often hear from riders looking to upgrade about how they are tired of hearing people complain about them sandbagging. THe thing is that most of the riders who say this in an upgrade request don't even have enough upgrade points to qualify for an upgrade in the first place. If someone doesn't have enough point to upgrade then they can't be considered a sandbagger.

When I have more time I enter results for upgradable races for the 4s, 3s and 35+ 4/5 races. Every once in a while I try to review this database to see if any riders are over the automatic upgrade point or closing in on an automatic upgrade. If rider has enough point for an automatic upgrade then I issue the upgrade. Of course my database only has results for our regional races. It is pretty rare that I find someone who has reached the automatic upgrade level. Most stronger riders a looking to upgrade event before they qualify for the upgrade.

If we have an overly strong Cat 4 division here in Nor Cal it probably has more to do with having a lot of strong riders in general vs having a lot of riders who are refusing to upgrade.

casey wrote:I was told that the new addition to the 4 to 3 upgrade guidelines was a compromise with some of the Regional Coordinators who wanted to allow upgrades to Cat 3 based on experience and no placings.

I'm going to feel free to ignore this new upgrade path.

Casey,

do we have stats on the number of points accumulated by the top 10% of the cat4's? I wonder if the ridiculously strong cat4 contingency is due to riders not upgrading.

peterpen wrote:
btw, @diskzero - I wouldn't call Pine Flat a 'flattish RR.' :wink:
cheers,
Peter

Oops! What, it didn't seem flat to you? :)

Of course, I forgot to mention all of the totally flat crits, where you can coast with the pack and never get your heart rate out of the medium endurance range.

Gene

RacerX wrote:Your assumption here is that in all of the 20 or more finishes, they'd only be in the pack. ...
[snip]
In short, I might be plenty ready to ride with 3s before I formally score my 20 points or 10 top 10s.

I think this first point (pack only finishes) is why Casey says he's going to ignore this new route. Guaranteed, there will be riders with no placings, points, or top 10's asking for upgrades once word of this gets out.

IMHO, when I'm ready to ride with the 3's, I'll have the points and/or top 10's to show for it. And yes, I ride for a team (in the spirit of 'you show me yours', etc Eastside Cycles) and work for others, but maybe it's easier because my team is small? Hmm, but then I don't have as many people working for me when it's my turn... And if it takes me a bit longer to get wins/ points/ top 10's, then A) that's more of a chance to help out my team mates in the 4's and B) I'll do a much better job of helping the team in the 3's.
But then, this is only my second year of racing and I'm in no particular hurry to get my @ss handed to me by the 3's! The 4's (and even my fellow geezers in the 35+ 4's) do a good enough job of that :lol:

btw, @diskzero - I wouldn't call Pine Flat a 'flattish RR.' :wink:
cheers,
Peter

Hey RacerX,

There certainly is an interesting dynamic in the lower category races. I have seen you guys, Sport and Spine and a few other clubs work together and really ramp up the pace for whoever your designated guy for the day is. It does seem that the upgrade path in the lower cats does favor a solo rider who goes for it regardless of team goals.

It seems you could certainly make a case for asking for an upgrade, given your experience and placings. If you are always a major factor in any race you are in, and are always near the top ten, why not ask? I do see the logic
of the "tailgunner" argument Casey made earlier. What does it really mean to be a racer that can stay at the back of the pack at San Ardo, Snelling, Pine Flat, CVC (when it isn't freezing rain) and any other flattish RR? This is the same as hanging at the back of a local hammer fest, like the Valley Ride, Spectrum, etc. I can compare wattages just hanging in the back, compared to instigating and driving the pace. The difference is pretty major.

WarrenG wrote:And why would a Cat 4 without sufficient placings to upgrade on points want to go to the 3's where they would have even less chance of placing?

Your assumption here is that in all of the 20 or more finishes, they'd only be in the pack. Currently, you can upgrade 4 to 3 with 25 races IF 10 are top 10 finishes. Consider the cases where a racer has a variety of finishes in 20-25 or even more races in 12 months; but not 20 points or 10 top 10s.

I ride on a pretty large and organized 4/5 master's team - EMC/Vellum (there, I said it). We work for each other and everyone gets to try a shot at placing in different tactical appraoches. We push the pace, attack and try to set up for the sprint; you know, we race like the big boys. I could ride solely with scoring my own top 6 or 10 finish in mind, but that wouldn't be much fun, or fair to the guys who plan a long time to peak for certain races. In short, I might be plenty ready to ride with 3s before I formally score my 20 points or 10 top 10s. Maybe my breakmates would work with me in the 3s and I place more often. Sure, I'll probably wait til I know how to race & place well in a variety of settings (thnx Hernando) and indeed earn my 20 points (already had 'em in 1992, but crashed & left for triathlon). But think about how many races/seasons it might take even a strong & smart rider to earn the upgrade given the 4/5 field sizes (and strength), high potential for crashes and the occasional mechanical issue. Oh, and a limited budget doesn't help. Ok, bitch sess is over.

I'm a little surprised to hear Casey say he'll ingore this route to upgrading when in other posts he's said something to effect that the USCF points system is a guide and he can upgrade racers when they are safe enough to handle pack riding at the next category's speed and distance. Why not use this new upgrade route for additional justification for those riders you think are ready for the move? As already suggested, if they get smoked bad, they can always downgrade.

How about a Cat. 2 festival? All Cat. 2 racers can join together and promote a weekend of just Cat. 2 races. You could do an entire day of crits. The last man standing gets the upgrade points.

I would pay to watch it!

casey wrote:
Considering that something like 3 % of all USCF members are Cat 1 and that Ct 1s are suppose to represent riders who are competitive at an international level it should be hard to become a Cat 1. Realistically most riders are going to have to do times stage races to earn the points to become a Cat 1. Either that or we need more race for Cat 2 only so the 2s don;t have to compete against the Pros and Cat 1s to place high enough to earn points. We just need more promotes who are willing to do road races that have Cat 2 only fields.

Bingo

I wasn't complaining just trying to show the comparison.

Cat 2 only fields still wont fix the problem if our crits are only 45 mins long. Isn't the required distance at 30 miles?

Either way for 95% of the cat 2's it doesn't matter as we race with the P-1st in most races except for a select few.

SWoo wrote:There might be some point where every cat 4 race is filled and only riders on organized teams will win (or perhaps luck in escaping crashes will play a big role instead of talent) but were not there yet.

Much as I love teamwork, I doubt this will ever be the case. It is true that this year in the 4's, one needs to pay close attention to breaks and which teams are represented - but hey! Isn't that how it's supposed to be? :wink:

I, too, am curious about what the rationale was behind this additional upgrade path, other than an overwhelming desire to escape by any means available that terrible, odious purgatory known as Cat 4 . :roll:

MarkSasser wrote:Try looking at the 2 to 1 upgrade!!!

Most of the races we do dont qualify for points at all.

Either by crit milage being to short or not enough riders in the field.

Its a very narrow gate and few pass through it.

MS

Considering that something like 3 % of all USCF members are Cat 1 and that Ct 1s are suppose to represent riders who are competitive at an international level it should be hard to become a Cat 1. Realistically most riders are going to have to do times stage races to earn the points to become a Cat 1. Either that or we need more race for Cat 2 only so the 2s don;t have to compete against the Pros and Cat 1s to place high enough to earn points. We just need more promotes who are willing to do road races that have Cat 2 only fields.

Nice to have perspective from the top of the food chain.

There might be some point where every cat 4 race is filled and only riders on organized teams will win (or perhaps luck in escaping crashes will play a big role instead of talent) but were not there yet. I don't know the demographics of the racers in the groups that lobbied for this change but that would provide an interesting comparison to what we have here now.

Try looking at the 2 to 1 upgrade!!!

Most of the races we do dont qualify for points at all.

Either by crit milage being to short or not enough riders in the field.

Its a very narrow gate and few pass through it.

MS

SWoo wrote:What I see is that a few years ago the demographics had the same number of cat 3's and cat 4's (which seems odd in that one would suppose that talent/training time is not evenly distributed between those two groups ) and that this year we are skewing towards 50 percent more cat 4's than cat 3's.

I think the larger number of Cat 4s compared to Cat 3s is due to the large numbers of Cat 5s who have been upgrading the past few years. For the past 3 years there have been about 100 more 5 to 4 upgrades than there have been 4 to 3 upgrades each year.

There have been some years where for USCF as a whole there have been more Cat 3s than Cat 4s. This doesn't really make sense if you think that each category is suppose to represent better riders/athletes so you would think that as you work up the categories you have fewer people in each category due to fewer people being able to meet the requirements for upgrading.

What I see is that a few years ago the demographics had the same number of cat 3's and cat 4's (which seems odd in that one would suppose that talent/training time is not evenly distributed between those two groups ) and that this year we are skewing towards 50 percent more cat 4's than cat 3's.

Road trip!!!!
I guess you going to have to travel to other States to get your points :lol:
Nick , if you are finishing at the front you won't have to worry about the guys fighting to just hold on to the last wheel ,but it sure is a lame rule :roll:

Not allowing these types of upgrades will ensure that we are one of the toughest if not THE toughest racing district in the country...and that we continue to have the strongest cat 4s on the planet

casey wrote:I was told that the new addition to the 4 to 3 upgrade guidelines was a compromise with some of the Regional Coordinators who wanted to allow upgrades to Cat 3 based on experience and no placings.

I'm going to feel free to ignore this new upgrade path.

Thank you.

And why would a Cat 4 without sufficient placings to upgrade on points want to go to the 3's where they would have even less chance of placing?

-Warren

srs wrote:casey wrote: I'm going to feel free to ignore this new upgrade path.

You're allowed to do that? How? If it's in the rules, how do you ignore it? Not being critical, just interested... really. I'm new to racing and am just trying to understand.

thanks!

If you look in the USAC rule book it says upgrade guidelines. The Local Associations are allowed some latitude in the upgrade process such as the alternative point system for Cat 3 to 2 upgrades.

casey wrote: I'm going to feel free to ignore this new upgrade path.

You're allowed to do that? How? If it's in the rules, how do you ignore it? Not being critical, just interested... really. I'm new to racing and am just trying to understand.

thanks!

I was told that the new addition to the 4 to 3 upgrade guidelines was a compromise with some of the Regional Coordinators who wanted to allow upgrades to Cat 3 based on experience and no placings.

I'm going to feel free to ignore this new upgrade path.

It would be interesting to know the origin of this rule. I see that it is also listed as an upgrade path in the ACA guidebook. I am wondering if this is part of a reciprocity agreemement between USA Cycling and other organizations like the ACA and OBRA.

As a rider working towards a 3 upgrade myself, I think that's got to be the lamest rule ever. if you can't win at least one race or finish in the top 5 or so, in my opinion, your not ready to move up in catagory.

Things are squerrly enough as it is and to add a bunch of riders that will ride over thier head to keep up, would undoubtly cause a few mishaps.

My 2 cents..........

NH

peterpen wrote:WarrenG wrote:You are required to have the pack finishes IN ADDITION TO upgrade points. This prevents a strong person with little experience from upgrading.

That's not really how it reads:

(from the usacycling.org page linked above)
"4-3: 20 points in any 12-month period; or experience in 25 qualifying races with a minimum of 10 top ten finishes, or 20 pack finishes with fields over 50."

Note the use of 'or' not 'and.'

But I'll admit that you're interpretation makes a whole lot more sense.
:lol: Just don't think that's what they're saying.

Ah yes, Sorry. I was going by Steven's comment that 20 finishes was an "additional benchmark"/requirement. But yeah, 20 finishes in addition to points makes much more sense than just 20 finishes.

casey wrote:All the new guideline requires for an upgrade from 4 to 3 is someone finish in the pack 20 times in races with fields of 50 or more starters. Basically someone could be the tail gunner in the pack all day, never letting another rider even get next to them and upgrade after 20 races like this. The added upgrade guideline says nothing about placings or upgrade points. This is why I'm not supportive of this additional upgrade option.

I'll go out on a limb and call that the stupidest rule in the USCF rule book.

What's the pack? Who's gonna keep track of that? Why upgrade someone for sucking wheel 20 times? I'm writing my congresswoman.

Maybe they're trying to clear out cat 4 b/c races are filling and it's getting too hard to collect 20 points?

R4L

WarrenG wrote:peterpen wrote:I'm not sure I understand the logic of using pack finishes toward upgrades? If the best I can manage is to finish with the pack, then I'd imagine I was in the correct category for my abilities. I think there are arguably situations where finishing with the pack is something to be proud of, but it just doesn't make any sense to count this toward upgrades. Before I upgrade to 3, I need to win some races as a 4 or at least consistently be at the pointy end of the field, otherwise what's the point?

Maybe I'm missing something here?

You are required to have the pack finishes IN ADDITION TO upgrade points. This prevents a strong person with little experience from upgrading.

That isn't how the new guideline reads. All the new guideline requires for an upgrade from 4 to 3 is someone finish in the pack 20 times in races with fields of 50 or more starters. Basically someone could be the tail gunner in the pack all day, never letting another rider even get next to them and upgrade after 20 races like this. The added upgrade guideline says nothing about placings or upgrade points. This is why I'm not supportive of this additional upgrade option.

WarrenG wrote:You are required to have the pack finishes IN ADDITION TO upgrade points. This prevents a strong person with little experience from upgrading.

That's not really how it reads:

(from the usacycling.org page linked above)
"4-3: 20 points in any 12-month period; or experience in 25 qualifying races with a minimum of 10 top ten finishes, or 20 pack finishes with fields over 50."

Note the use of 'or' not 'and.'

But I'll admit that you're interpretation makes a whole lot more sense.
:lol: Just don't think that's what they're saying.

peterpen wrote:I'm not sure I understand the logic of using pack finishes toward upgrades? If the best I can manage is to finish with the pack, then I'd imagine I was in the correct category for my abilities. I think there are arguably situations where finishing with the pack is something to be proud of, but it just doesn't make any sense to count this toward upgrades. Before I upgrade to 3, I need to win some races as a 4 or at least consistently be at the pointy end of the field, otherwise what's the point?

Maybe I'm missing something here?

You are required to have the pack finishes IN ADDITION TO upgrade points. This prevents a strong person with little experience from upgrading.

I'm not sure I understand the logic of using pack finishes toward upgrades? If the best I can manage is to finish with the pack, then I'd imagine I was in the correct category for my abilities. I think there are arguably situations where finishing with the pack is something to be proud of, but it just doesn't make any sense to count this toward upgrades. Before I upgrade to 3, I need to win some races as a 4 or at least consistently be at the pointy end of the field, otherwise what's the point?

Maybe I'm missing something here?

Hate to bring this back to accurate results, but with so many apparent issues with that, how are we racers to prove we had a pack finish?

If someone brings up the lack of their 32nd place in this forum, someone else is often quick to blast them for worrying about that 'low' of a placing. If I ever want to change my career cat 4 status, I'll probably need the assistance of my pack finishes. I'll whine elswhere about my missing result form Cantua Creek since it is even further off topic.
X

Fair enough.

I would assume if someone is placed at all in a flat crit, one finished with the pack or pretty close to that by the end.

If we could possibly get whoever proposed and/or approved that rule to comment, maybe they could address those concerns, also, what problem is this rule change supposed to fix? Off the top of my head, I did not think any other USCF regions other than SoCal or possibly TX have cat 4 races with this situation.

I'll have to think about it. I see several potential problems. How can I verify that the rider finished in the pack. Are officials going to have to start noting who was in the pack and who wasn't. Is it really smart to encourage riders who are starting to get overly tired to fight hard to finish in the pack? Tired riders tend to make mistakes that can lead to accidents. Is someone who has only sat at the back of the pack for a whole race for a number of races really qualified to move up to Cat 3?