ZebraMan wrote:I am soliciting the opinions of the candidates for the four officer positions on the following question, the first of what I hope will be a series of important topics within the NCNCA:

Do you favor a change in the rules eliminating cat 5's from mixed categories (e.g. 35+ 4/5, 45+, 55+, juniors) where prizes are on offer?

Well I've decided to run for Treasurer so I'll reply now.

At our race we split off all 5's and I think it's a good idea generally at any event with critical mass. But excluding 5's from all Masters races would require a rule change at the national level. We have an unusual district, and this wouldn't work so well in the rest of the US. I raced back east at a well-established event a few years ago and the single "over 35" field wasn't all that big, by our standards. There wasn't any 45+ or 55+. From what I've read in other district newsletters & whatnot, that's pretty common. Even here, some of the remote events need mixed fields just to get enough bodies to make it a race.

I don't remember what started your threads about Cat 5's but I certainly support the idea of trying to boost racer skill levels and race safety, instead of making it a black art you learn through trial & error. It's appropriate for NCNCA because it's something every club and racer would benefit from, and it's somewhat local - if as a group we come to some agreement about things like what the centerline rule at San Ardo means, and the drill for neutralizing, problems are less likely to happen.

But I don't see that as just a Cat 5 issue and I think it has to go way beyond clinics. There could be a ton of info on this website about the issues that come up on these boards the Monday after a race snafu. Picture articles and videos about pack riding dynamics, how to neutralize, avoiding overlap, safe braking, etc. Even race-specific stuff like that 1-foot lump of asphalt on the Copperopolis descent that risks a 45 mph endo.

Pair it with voluntary online tests (as Casey and others have suggested on these boards) and encourage going through it with a carrot - maybe a badge by your license number and name that becomes something clubs look for in new members. This would take a little budget, but probably not all that much. Some of the content exists or could be scraped from race reports (put Kevin Metcalfe on retainer!). What Cat 5 isn't going to read this stuff if it's easy to find? It's bike-porn for a new racer. And the nice thing is, it doesn't require any national-level rule changes. Just do it.

Another piece, bigger than clinics or a website, is the opportunity to ride regularly with experienced racers. Some areas & clubs do a great job with this, but in some ways I think the club system has broken down a bit (CRC being no exception). It would be good to help restore some of that,, But that's a topic to itself!

-Tad

Thanks, Lorri.
And thank you to the three candidates who have taken the time and thought to respond to this inquiry. I think it is clear who the core candidates are.

I have some thoughts for the other thread ...

Are there any other intended candidates who care enough to respond?

rather than further dilute Jess' original topic, I suggest we move the discussion of CAT5s over here:

http://www.ncncaracing.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1938

Lorri

casey wrote: If you think the complaints about how quickly the 35+ 4/5 races fill up in Pre reg just wait for the complaints about how quick the Cat 5 races fill next year. If Cat 5s can't get into races because of full fields then there will be people who drop out of the sport and for some people it may take a year or more just to get their 10 races. If most Cat 5 fields are going to fill up then there will be even more people looking for early upgrades based on they can't get into races. If promoters are going to be pushed to not mix Cat 5s with any other category then those same promoters should be encouraged to have a second Cat 5 race to help accommodate the demand from Cat 5s.

Exactly......and very well said.

This is a forum, and everyone may express their opinion. Warren, I have talked to the riders and track supervisors regarding current issues of cat 5s riding with cat 1/2 riders, but don't care to declare any names here since it is a public forum.

IMO, many riders on road and track express a desire to upgrade before they've mastered pack riding skills and/or knowledge of the rulebook. This is why I'm NOT running for 1st Vice President in 2010. Since that person would be responsible for upgrades, I don't believe I would be as unbiased as Casey has been all these years.

A concern will be if promoters just switch from a 35+ 4/5 race to a 35+ 4 race and only have one race for Cat 5s. Currently there isn't much of a problem with the Cat 5 field filling up since the 35+ 4/5 race can make room for Cat 5s. IN theory if you have a Cat 5 race ( 50 rider field limit) and a 35+ 4/5 race ( 75 rider field limit) you have room for 150 Cat 5s t a given race. Currently we have 1065 Cat 5s, that is after almost 400 Cat 5 to 4 upgrades this year already. Now think about 1000 Cat 5s fighting over 50 available race positions next year if most races have a single Cat 5 only race and that is the only race Cat 5s can do. If you think the complaints about how quickly the 35+ 4/5 races fill up in Pre reg just wait for the complaints about how quick the Cat 5 races fill next year. If Cat 5s can't get into races because of full fields then there will be people who drop out of the sport and for some people it may take a year or more just to get their 10 races. If most Cat 5 fields are going to fill up then there will be even more people looking for early upgrades based on they can't get into races. If promoters are going to be pushed to not mix Cat 5s with any other category then those same promoters should be encouraged to have a second Cat 5 race to help accommodate the demand from Cat 5s.

I don't think that is an issue. I have yet to see any significant number of promoters excluding 5s. I think that would be a form of promoter suicide.

Ron

GFMeilahn wrote:I'm running for the office of Secretary for 2010, and am mentally recording these discussions. Having never been a category 5, I don't personally know what it's like to race for for no prizes.

Not much different than racing for a t-shirt and pack of blox. I imagine that the incentive is to do something that you enjoy, learn from the experience and to get better all while having some fun. Sort of the point of most amateur sports - no?

Just be sure that in all of this discussion about segregating 5's, they do not wind up being put in some sort of racing purgatory where the class is excluded by promoters and it takes forever to get race experience. Not counting the EB's, there should be the ability to get at least 10 races for a 5 in one season.

George, if you have a valid concern about something that is affecting the track NOW, not 10 years ago, I suggest you communicate your concern more directly to the people who can do something about it.

Since you mention your concern about fast track upgrades, it will be more productive if you address your concerns (along with some recent, and relevant data to support your position) to a member of the upgrade committee. Email contacts for them are available at the ridethetrack.com website.

To my knowledge, this season, there were NO formal races at the track for men that included cats 1-5 racing together, and only rarely would there be cats 1-4 together, and that was only IF the cat 4(s) had prior approval by the race organizer/Supervisor.

This past year we have strongly encouraged promoters to avoid races that include cat 1-4 women racing together. Most of the women's races this year for cat 1,2's did not include 4's-the 4's had separate races.

Most, if not all of the masters mass-start races in 2009 were cat 1-3.

I'm running for the office of Secretary for 2010, and am mentally recording these discussions. Having never been a category 5, I don't personally know what it's like to race for no prizes. But I do feel the category 5 riders should have ample opportunity to race among themselves before upgrading to cat 4.

I also oppose the express upgrades that so often happen at the track; many riders have moved up too fast there and crashes happen due to lack of experience. The last time I crashed at the velodrome was in 1999 when all categories were allowed to ride the final points race. The crashes in the lower categories tend to involve more riders.

Thank you Ron and Lorri. You are both Are there any other candidates, declared or potential, who care enough to monitor the forum, or to reveal his/her position on this important issue?

Jess, the NCNCA BOD isn't empowered to make a rule change like the one you propose, however, we can encourage promoters to consider their field selection. One way to do this would be to make changes to the BAR/BAT categories in the hopes that these changes will influence promoters in their field selection. I know you have a proposal on the table for the October NCNCA meeting and I'm in support of your suggestions.

My personal opinion is that E5 is a training field and the goal is to learn as much as possible about racing during these 10 races. As you know, I made changes to the fields at the Menlo Park Grand Prix (the race I promote) based on your recommendations you had made in the past, eliminating mixed fields that included the E5s. If more promoters offered an individual E5 race, the NCNCA has a very robust mentoring program (of which you've been a mentor) so they can provide in-race instruction and post-race de-brief.

In the best of all worlds, all new racers would be encouraged to participate in clinics and skills-improvement programs to help them learn as much as possible before they begin racing (and during the early parts of their racing careers). While the NCNCA can't require this, we can certainly encourage racers to participate.

There are skills clinics held by many different coaches throughout the season and I think we could do a better job of communicating these to our new riders. Unfortunately, email is not currently an option (since we can't get email addresses from USAC and also many new racers don't hold annual licenses). However, we could provide a flyer at races that includes a listing of upcoming clinics. Perhaps we can find funding in the 2010 NCNCA budget to underwrite this.

I would hope our clubs would provide training opportunities for new racers. If a club doesn't have a coach or skills instructor among it's membership, there are lots of coaches (including both Ron and me to name just two) who can provide these services.

Another idea that's been tossed around frequently is to offer a skills clinic immediately preceding a race (as we do with the EBs). While this could potentially lengthen a race day, in some venues this could be run concurrently while there is a race on the course, if there is sufficient space at the venue for skills instruction, followed by a short session on the course itself. This is something I'm considering for Menlo Park in 2010.

So, back to your original question. While I don't think the NCNCA BOD can make a requirement of promoters as you suggest, we can certainly encourage promoters to offer individual E5 races and not mix the E5s with other fields. And we can continue to offer training opportunities for our new racers to help them become safer, smarter racers during the learning process.

Lorri

Hi Jess,
I think this is an important topic.
I have always been a believer that a 5 is a 5 and should gain the experience necessary to upgrade prior to racing with 4s or any other category.
From a mentors position, we can't give them the instruction they need if they are mixed in with other categories.
And yes, there is the prize issue, I am not clear on how we keep managing to get around this.

From a coaches perspective:
Gaining pack skills and developing the neural pathways to take in the large amount of information being thrown at a rider can take up to 3 years to fully develop, perhaps 1 to 1.5 with clinics and specific instruction form mentors and coaches.
The point here is that fitness and strength are not relevant when it comes to racing skill. We often see riders upgrading very quickly because of their ability to ride away from the field in the lower categories. Once those riders start racing with athletes of similar strength they are virtually a menace in the pack. They did not learned how to race, they race with their legs and not their head.

From a promoters perspective, it just makes good financial sense. If you keep the 35+ 4 field to only 4s your gain 25 entries, and you make the racing safer for those 4s.

All of this being said, I am not sure what if any authority the BOD and/or president have to make promoters abide by this idea, but I would do my best to convince them that this is the best choice for all involved.

Note: My position and this post is not for purpose of debate. Jess asked our positions and this is mine.

Cheers,
Ron