I'd just like to add, since I don't think any of us did yet, I'm glad Jess is willing to "think outside the box" and consider alternative race formats that make good sense, and that he seeks input about that from a spectrum of people.

And please Zebra man, no chargin at me. Remember, I'm a cheetah sprinter, and you know what cheetah's do to zebras... :lol:

Back in the old days we used to sometimes have a "gambler's preme" on the second to last lap of a criterium. Big bucks. This encouraged a guy to take an all-or-nothing flyer with about two laps to go. The crowds would really get into the drama unfolding of one guy trying to hold off the entire field charging down the road after him.

Maybe you could offer a bunch of points in a similar way.

I can tell you there's no way we're going to have a scoreboard. That would be perilous. It's hard enough for a rider to check the lap cards, let alone a scoreboard -- especially in a course all flat-out as this will be.

So it would seem like a 3-2-1 points system, and then offer bonus points on the final few laps, with a special bonus for the finale?

Maybe make the points a team thing rather than individual.

That could be cool.

-R

I have no desire to get in front of a charging zebra, unless I'm waving a nice, microbrew at him, in which case I know he'll forget why he was charging in the first place and just start drinking the beer.

I've done 800+ criteriums so I'll say that the point a lap format is a little easier for the riders to understand because the points come every lap, not just at some interval in a points race that some people will forget halfway around the course, and the point a lap format points are usually 3,2,1 for the first three places, or fewer.

Points races are 5,3,2,1 points for the top 4 places and sometimes people get confused about that. It's really not so complicated, but if you're trying to modify the format into a format that's relatively simple, point a lap would be my advice.

Of course there's no rule saying what points you need to offer for sprints in a criterium so you could add all kinds of variations. It used to be that the last sprint in a points race was double points, or to keep things moving real fast you could offer double points for the half-way sprint, yadda-yadda-yadda...

Just make it real clear on the start line what lap card riders will see going into the sprint offering more points than normal. Or instead of ringing the bell for that lap Jess can grab the mic and make zebra noises.

ZebraMan wrote:You trackie guys are just KILLING ME!!!
I thought it was only Warren, but it's an epidemic! Somebody check the water in San Jose. Maybe a little Abilify or Zoloft needs to be added to the Hellyer water supply.
(and by the way, Warren ... don't get in front of a charging zebra)

I am considering ... CONSIDERING ... offering the 35+ 1/2/3 race as a points race at the Napa GP. It would seem to me the best, most experienced group to try flying that balloon.

Having heard from the more vocal trackies and Zebraphobes, may I hear from some of the crit racers??

Well to be honest I (like most track racers) was crit racer first, and hey...I live in Alameda. Just because the track is in SJ doesn't mean we're all huddled down there! :-)

So as a sandbagger Cat 4 crit racer, I'll comment.

Consider floating the points-race option for the E4s and E5s too. I know the scoring seems harder, but hey, it's a lot easier than neutralizing a race to get ambulances and gurneys out. :-)
(those really ruin the race day schedule too btw)

Honestly I don't see what all the fuss is about. If you think about it criteriums are a LOT more like a mobile, 1-day velodrome; than a road race: (more cost effective than building/maintaining tracks everywhere too)
1. The course is a circle usually under 2mi
2. There is no feed zone
3. Spectators can sit in one spot and watch the whole race (start, finish)
4. The longest duration of a race is 90minutes
5. Only one race is running at a time, versus people leaving in waves.

Running track formats for a crit shouldn't be a problem at all. Honestly I'm glad there is a promoter really looking at it.

The one think that is missing from Hellyer, and Criteriums for that matter that could really help out is a SCORE-BOARD!

For criteriums you could have the big whiteboard foldouts. One at the start/finish, and another one or two spread out on the course near the course marshals. With cheap radios the guys at the start finish/ could call out updates for the racer #s and points, so the boards are kept in sync. That way the racers/fans know exactly what's going on.

There will only be a few people (the strongest) really accumulating points anyway so you could only put people on the board when they have more than 1 point.

Just a few ideas.

-kieran

P.S. It would be a lot more fun to watch a points race AND have a scoreboard.

I'm in favor of a points race for the 1-2Pro. They used to have them back in the day. (SJ plaza park) and they are pretty common back east. It really changes the team dynamics as it is really hard to lead out a team sprinter every lap or every 3 laps. Plus it is a blast because unless you're Rainman, it is hard to keep track of who is winning (ban race radios for this race) so it is balls/ovaries to the wall the whole race. Since this day is competing with Elkhorn and Tour de Nez , the p1-2 field might be smaller, safer and easier to score. My two cents.

You trackie guys are just KILLING ME!!!
I thought it was only Warren, but it's an epidemic! Somebody check the water in San Jose. Maybe a little Abilify or Zoloft needs to be added to the Hellyer water supply.
(and by the way, Warren ... don't get in front of a charging zebra)

I am considering ... CONSIDERING ... offering the 35+ 1/2/3 race as a points race at the Napa GP. It would seem to me the best, most experienced group to try flying that balloon.

Having heard from the more vocal trackies and Zebraphobes, may I hear from some of the crit racers??

GFMeilahn wrote:The bottom line is striving for safer finishes, and MAYBE a different format will offer that. I think we agree that a huge bunch riding side by side on the last lap is the least safe scenario. Will a win and out format change that? I KNOW IT SHATTERS the field when done at the velodrome, and may do the same in a criterium when the laps are short enough. If someone does offer it, then we'll have a better idea how safe it could be.

And again, I say, puh-LEASE don't do this for the P/1/2 race.

It's not really about being afraid of new things so much as, well, not wanting extra rules when we don't really need them to make the race fast, safe and fun. The race won't be slow, and the finish won't be "bunched up," and it will naturally shatter with a technical course like this.

I promise, it won't be boring.

Yes, George, I misremembered. Your mention was the post right before Casey's where he described the point a lap format. So for that you get 2 points and Casey gets 1 point.

Maybe the roadies would like to hear about the "Snowball" race. 8)

Actually GEORGE MEILAHN first mentioned the point-a-lap option :!: :!: Re read the second post on this topic.

It was Casey who first suggested point-a-lap.

I suggest more points than one per lap because of the larger criterium field size and the number of laps in the race.

WIN-AND-OUTS ARE NOT THE ONLY OPTION

You mean like this. :D

GFMeilahn wrote:The bottom line is striving for safer finishes, and MAYBE a different format will offer that. I think we agree that a huge bunch riding side by side on the last lap is the least safe scenario. Will a win and out format change that? I KNOW IT SHATTERS the field when done at the velodrome, and may do the same in a criterium when the laps are short enough. If someone does offer it, then we'll have a better idea how safe it could be.

I think the non-track riders are missing the point here:

"WIN-AND-OUTS ARE NOT THE ONLY OPTION"

I don't know how to make that any more clear. If I could use 24pt font with all bold I would.

As Warren has described above, and I have mentions on numerous occasion throughout this post, the Temp/Point-a-lap format is the safest.

Win-n-outs and reverse Win-n-outs don't make anything safer. You still end up having the big sprinters sitting in and waiting until the end. You get more safety by discouraging this behavior. The best way to discourage that behavior is to award points on a per lap basis as Warren has described above.

So...if organizers/promoters are truly serious about making the sport safer then they will do something about it rather than rant on and on about just ONE track racing format. Look at the facts, evaluate the results and then have the sack to make a decision to try something new based on safety.

Otherwise this is all just BS and we might as well have 2 ambulances standing by at every crit, as it seems like that's how many routinely need to carry some poor fools away.

Meanwhile, I may decide to protest how dangerous criteriums are by wearing some Oakland Raiders football pads during a race.... if the promoters aren't interested in my safety, guess I need to look out for #1.

-kieran

(shaking his head at his desk...mumbling, "jesus-h-christ")

The bottom line is striving for safer finishes, and MAYBE a different format will offer that. I think we agree that a huge bunch riding side by side on the last lap is the least safe scenario. Will a win and out format change that? I KNOW IT SHATTERS the field when done at the velodrome, and may do the same in a criterium when the laps are short enough. If someone does offer it, then we'll have a better idea how safe it could be.

Did anyone say a point-a-lap was a bad idea for the criterium?

Each lap, 3 points for 1st, 2 points for 2nd, 1 point for 3rd. If somebody laps the field laps take precedence over points. At the end of the race the one with the most points on the lead lap wins. Easy stuff. If trackies can understand this easy enough I would think the roadies could too, yes?

Especially on that course, you will not have a big swarming group resting up after each sprint. After each sprint it's the windup for the next sprint, and this keeps speed relatively high throughout.

C'mon Jess. Just because zebras always run from a challenge doesn't mean you have to!

Bummer! Once again creativity and something that could have been cool shot down by the "let's never try something new" drones.

"I don't understand"
"It could be dangerous"

You can apply the "it could be dangerous" to any topic and it would be in context.

Maybe you should stop eating, you might get something stuck in your throat and choke to death.

Let's all go hide in padded rooms because after all, there are people getting killed outside.

LAME!

-R

YOU TRACKIES ARE KILLING ME!!! (AGAIN)

Okay, thank you all for your input.
The fact that some people voiced concern about the safety of the format prevailed over my enthusiasm for making this new event experimental.

Welcome, ZTEAM - Napa Chapter as co-promoter!!

Cycle Circus & ZTeam will be running the Gran Prix in a traditional format, but I think you'll find that this will be a non-traditional race in many other respects, like the prizes and the emcees.

:D :wink: :o I -- JUST -- CAN'T -- WAIT!!! :lol: :D :P :shock:

Jesster
Cycle Circus

bpeterson wrote: Dan told me, in person at the track that night, that he didn't take a lap, that he sat up when the first bell rang and let the 5th place rider go by then latched on to the back of the pack...

Brain was one of my two "sources" who told me about the race.

In any case, the excitement and drama was obviously so high that some people weren't clear what was happening.

ps...

come to try the track!

(sorry kieran, last one ... really)

Peterson wrote:
Quote:Now I'm completely confused. Dan told me, in person at the track that night, that he didn't take a lap, that he sat up when the first bell rang and let the 5th place rider go by then latched on to the back of the pack...

then I need another beginner session!!!

maybe Dan will let us know.

either way, Kieran is right - we're totally clogging this forum about win-n-outs.

wait, this is about crit riding?

booooorrrrring.

m :wink: [/i]

bpeterson wrote:mhernandez wrote:Warren wrote:
Quote:Two different people told me Dan had more than half a lap lead and then went up to the rail to wait for the pack once he realized what would happen. That's all I heard and I wasn't there. So, sorry if other people told me something that didn't happen.

If he did lap the field in a reverse win and out, then he got no reward for doing that, and that's not good, or bad tactics, I dunno. If it had been a normal win and out he would have been rewarded for being half a lap ahead at the first sprint.

Response 1:
you need better sources, Warren. whoever told you that needs to come to one of the beginner sessions because everyone who finished ours last night would have been watching and aware that Dan Smith lapped the field. I'm not sure how anyone within the county missed it, because we were all cheering for him so loudly.

Now I'm completely confused. Dan told me, in person at the track that night, that he didn't take a lap, that he sat up when the first bell rang and let the 5th place rider go by then latched on to the back of the pack...

Hey fellow trackies.... uh the topic isn't Dan taking a lap or not. It's on road track race formats, and increasing the safety of our beloved criteriums. Dan taking a lap or not is inconsequential.

What is important is making the criteriums safer. I already wear a light lower body armor to help in a crash (http://www.rockgardn.com/items/body-armor/cya-shorts-cya-shorts-detail.htm)
If things keep going the way they are in criteriums, we'll all be dressed up like Storm Troopers soon...

lets stick to the productive safety oriented topic at hand. ...please.... :-)

mhernandez wrote:Warren wrote:
Quote:Two different people told me Dan had more than half a lap lead and then went up to the rail to wait for the pack once he realized what would happen. That's all I heard and I wasn't there. So, sorry if other people told me something that didn't happen.

If he did lap the field in a reverse win and out, then he got no reward for doing that, and that's not good, or bad tactics, I dunno. If it had been a normal win and out he would have been rewarded for being half a lap ahead at the first sprint.

Response 1:
you need better sources, Warren. whoever told you that needs to come to one of the beginner sessions because everyone who finished ours last night would have been watching and aware that Dan Smith lapped the field. I'm not sure how anyone within the county missed it, because we were all cheering for him so loudly.

Now I'm completely confused. Dan told me, in person at the track that night, that he didn't take a lap, that he sat up when the first bell rang and let the 5th place rider go by then latched on to the back of the pack...

Warren wrote:
Quote:Two different people told me Dan had more than half a lap lead and then went up to the rail to wait for the pack once he realized what would happen. That's all I heard and I wasn't there. So, sorry if other people told me something that didn't happen.

If he did lap the field in a reverse win and out, then he got no reward for doing that, and that's not good, or bad tactics, I dunno. If it had been a normal win and out he would have been rewarded for being half a lap ahead at the first sprint.

Response 1:
you need better sources, Warren. whoever told you that needs to come to one of the beginner sessions because everyone who finished ours last night would have been watching and aware that Dan Smith lapped the field. I'm not sure how anyone within the county missed it, because we were all cheering for him so loudly.

bad sources.

Response 2:
he was rewarded for lapping the field. it was glorious.

And, he had the track awareness to hear it, decide upon it, and do it.

he, obviously, does not need to attend a beginner session.

-

Response 3:
is this a rather obvious example of "arm-chair quarterbacking?"

---
m

WarrenG wrote:Two different people told me Dan had more than half a lap lead and then went up to the rail to wait for the pack once he realized what would happen. That's all I heard and I wasn't there. So, sorry if other people told me something that didn't happen.

If he did lap the field in a reverse win and out, then he got no reward for doing that, and that's not good, or bad tactics, I dunno. If it had been a normal win and out he would have been rewarded for being half a lap ahead at the first sprint.

and that's more reason why reverse win-n-outs are confusing! Even seasoned track racers like Dan get it confused...

Although Dan going for a lap on the field combined with Mikes announcing made for some great entertainment. LOL!

Two different people told me Dan had more than half a lap lead and then went up to the rail to wait for the pack once he realized what would happen. That's all I heard and I wasn't there. So, sorry if other people told me something that didn't happen.

If he did lap the field in a reverse win and out, then he got no reward for doing that, and that's not good, or bad tactics, I dunno. If it had been a normal win and out he would have been rewarded for being half a lap ahead at the first sprint.

sorry, just a buzz in for a correction to Warren's recollection of Friday Night:

he wrote:

Quote:In the 40+ race last Friday it was bad that Dan Smith had more than half a lap lead before he realized that if he kept that to the first sprint he'd get 6th place, not first. So he literally stopped pedaling so the pack would catch him. And then he had to wait through the first two sprints before he could sprint for the win.

Incorrect. DanSmith finished lapping the field, then won the final, epic sprint.

It's true that we had pros Ben and Andy Jacques-Maynes there last Friday, but in both the Elites and the Masters events, it was masters riders taking most of the glory. Larry Nolan was a valiant 2nd in the EXTREMELY exciting Match Sprints. The only one able to beat him all night was the current NorCal Champ of the sprints, Matias Elgart.

it was a great evening, and the win-n-out that Dan Smith won that Warren mis-recollects was a great, GREAT win.

super fun, come check it out if you want to see how riders can be super-aware and make safe, race-winning decisions. The track offers it.

cool,

sorry, go back to the Napa gig. good luck, i'll probably have to miss it, though, Jess. Sorry about that, life gets in the way of bike racing - as we all know.
m

WarrenG wrote:Point a laps and tempo races on the track at least are very safe because the pace is kept high for almost every meter covered. On the road you won't have more than a handful of guys going for any sprint except the last one because only the first 1-3 places in a sprint score points.

I 100% agree. Tempo, Point a lap races are the best to watch too. The spectators are continuously drawn in as there is no down time during the race. Every lap counts, and the racers are on the gas the whole time.

Picture the field as a circling comet, shedding at least 5 riders off every lap as the pace will not let up. The race just gets safer and safer as it rolls on with the field getting smaller and smaller.

Sucks when you're the guy getting shelled (happens to me all the time at track P,1,2 tempo races) but it sure makes it great for spectators! Also gives a lot to announce on.

Those who haven't seen one before search on youtube or come to the track on a Friday race night. You'll love it.

Additionally you could probably increase the size of all the fields with the Tempo format, as at least 1/2 will be gone before the race is half done. They will either be roasted and off the back or demoralized and abandon. Kinda like Cat's Hill.....

-kieran

Diabolical! I've never raced the track, but this reverse win and out makes me feel funny inside. I like it! The idea of breaking away for sixth place and getting second in the final sprint and ending up with nothing is great. Lets do something different and see how it works. As far as it being confusing....come on! This isn't triathlon.

Point a laps and tempo races on the track at least are very safe because the pace is kept high for almost every meter covered. On the road you won't have more than a handful of guys going for any sprint except the last one because only the first 1-3 places in a sprint score points.

In the 1,2's ( and other categories) I think you'd see a lot of breakaways because riders know they don't need to stay out there to the finish, just long enough to score some points. Riders who don't normally attack because they know they can't last to the end might be more willing to attack because a 5-lap break at any time in the race could score enough points to win the race.

I've seen this in races that have big premes almost every lap.

Watch high-level points races on the track-they're very fast and dynamic. No one is sitting in waiting for the finish because that gets you nothing.

If you think it will string out the lower cat races and make them more exciting or safer or whatever, more power to you. But please don't use this format for the P/1/2. It would add an element of danger to a race that is normally lined out and aggressive anyway.

The point per lap idea sounds like a good one to me. The miss and out or whatever--not really as much. When it was done at Wente a few years ago was confusing...

Nick~

I'll be using a cross bike and MTB shoes so I can dismount and short cut over the hay bail.

The cat 1,2's crash because they are racing aggressively and in very close quarters. In the other categories many of the crashes are a result of races that are too slow-lots of swarming and lots of "fresh" riders who want to sprint, and of course, not great skills, and/or they're unaware of how their swerving affects other riders.

The point-a-lap/tempo race format would likely speed up the races in the 3,4,5's because you basically have a last half lap of speed repeated every lap. There are no slow laps.

I did the 35+ win and out and Wente that year and it didn't work well. Everybody just sat there and waited for the sprint. Then they saw that Ken Carpenter was going to sprint so most riders just sat up and waited for the next sprint to even try to get a good place.

And Brian's right about the reverse win and out. The best riders are deterred from breaking away because if they stay away to the finish they get 6th place, not first. And if a few riders get away, none of them will want to cross the line in first position in the first sprint. So do they stop pedaling to force another rider into crossing first so they "get" 6th place?

In the 40+ race last Friday it was bad that Dan Smith had more than half a lap lead before he realized that if he kept that to the first sprint he'd get 6th place, not first. So he literally stopped pedaling so the pack would catch him. And then he had to wait through the first two sprints before he could sprint for the win.

casey wrote:kcox920 wrote:ZebraMan wrote:
.... the number of people getting hurt in accidents is about the same in all the categories based on the number of occurrence reports I've seen over the past year.

Aha! The truth from the numbers. That is a BFD Casey as everyone talks big about the upper categories being inherently safer. If what you say is true (no reason to think it isn't) then actions to increase safety should be applied to all categories.

Thoughts?

Being a track racer, i am VERY partial towards a Points Race format as a means of increasing safety.

kcox920 wrote:ZebraMan wrote:

Mikey's suggestion not to have it in the lower cat fields is probably worth considering. (We aren't offering a 5's field, the course being too technical.)

It IS all about the fun.

Uhhh, aren't the lower Cat fields where all the crashes happen anyway? If safety is the goal, then the lower Cat fields are a must. The P/1/2 and M P1/2/3 fields keep the pace high already......

Actually the upper categories have just about as many accidents ( at least that result in occurrence reports being filed) as the lower cats. There is certainly less sketchy riding in the upper categories but the number of people getting hurt in accidents is about the same in all the categories based on the number of occurrence reports I've seen over the past year.

ZebraMan wrote:

Mikey's suggestion not to have it in the lower cat fields is probably worth considering. (We aren't offering a 5's field, the course being too technical.)

It IS all about the fun.

Uhhh, aren't the lower Cat fields where all the crashes happen anyway? If safety is the goal, then the lower Cat fields are a must. The P/1/2 and M P1/2/3 fields keep the pace high already......

And my 2-cents (which is really worth a bit more these days, closer to 3-cents since it costs more than 1-cent to make a penny). These are just my opinions, so don't feel bad if you don't agree.

I HATED the win and out format at Wente a couple years ago. I don't do many crits these days, and I'm pretty sure I'll never go to one doing that format again.

On the track I think it works out okay because it's a short race and usually a rider has a few more races that night. I don't know, to me, just something about investing 45-minutes or an hour of riding around in circles for a win and out just doesn't sit well.

Regarding the inverse win and out: I like that format even less, even on the track. Sure, it was a blast to race on Friday night and fun to watch the 40+ version. However, what I don't like about that race, even on the track, is that it doesn't reward an aggressive rider really going for the win. It forces those who want to win to sit back and just wait, wait, wait. Okay, so learning patience is a good thing, I suppose, but still.

Don't get me wrong about win and outs - aside from the Madison it's my favorite mass start track race.

I just think it should stay on the track, and it should stay in it's normal format. :-)

I would also agree with Kieren that a tempo style race would sure get things strung out. What's the description Mike gave on Friday night? "You're about to see a whole bunch of mini explosions." Or something to that effect. I would probably skip out on a crit run in this format as well, but that's just me.

Brian Peterson

I sure like the discussion. Please keep it going. We won't be making the decision on this right away.

A couple of amendments that I would be proposing to the race officials if we do the format:
1. There would be a rule that ANY celebration after a finish would lead to disqualification. The short span to the turn after the sprint may make this necessary in any case.
2. The riders winning the early lap sprints would be instructed to continue to ride to the finish (for safety).

Mikey's suggestion not to have it in the lower cat fields is probably worth considering. (We aren't offering a 5's field, the course being too technical.)

It IS all about the fun.

As a crit/track racer I'm glad there is at least the discussion of diff formats for the 'ol crits.

However, I think the reverse win-n-out could be really dangerous, perhaps even more so than the normal scratch race for the following reasons:

1. Reverse win-n-outs are confusing and weird for even track racers. I can just see all the looks of confusion on the road racer faces.

2. As lazy sit-in-and-sprint crit racer myself, a large sprint at the end is often a little safer as I'm not completely throwing it all out. I may opt for not shooting a dangerous line to get 1st if I know I can pick a safer line and get second/third. You put me in a situation where the sprint at the end for 1st place is all or nothing, and I will be forcing my 205# ass and 25# bike into every little nook/cranny using all of my considerably more momentum to create holes while sprinting. This will be *very* dangerous for the <200# racers getting bumped on my way by. I'm sure I'm not the only big sit in sprinter, so it WILL be more dangerous at the end.

3. The reverse win-n-out, like Warren says, only rewards the weak, who didn't have a chance in a group sprint anyway. So what's the point? They weren't gonna make the sprint dangerous while OTB.

I say do a point-a-lap Tempo race or go for a Points race with points 3 places deep. This truly accomplishes the goal of keeping the pace high the race strung out, a safer race, AND rewarding the strongest riders.

Reverse win-n-outs don't make things safer.

IMHO as usual.

-kieran

I think that at least for the first couple of sprints in a reverse Win and Out in a Crit will be like any prime sprint with only a limited number of riders going for the lower places. The main potential problem with a Win and Out or Reverse Win and Out or a Miss and Out in a crit is communicating with the riders about who is suppose to come out.

A technical crit course is probably better to run something like a reverse win and out since the pack will tend to be more strung out naturally anyway. Also the first couple of sprints are more likely to be contested by a break since the top riders will not be interested in the first few sprints.

hmm...

maybe experiment only with the more experienced categories with this format?

we ran Reverse Win-n-Outs on the track on Friday and they were a big crowd pleaser. but, like bunny said, that was under the "safer" track conditions.

i could see the potential for some mayhem in the sprints at Napa, especially if the circuit is as tight and technical as Jess describes.

Love the idea of shaking things up and experimentation - but, safety is ALWAYS my first concern in bike races.

long live safe experimentation!
m

The race is a good test of who is listening to the pre race instructions on the start line and who wasn't. Even at the track with smaller fields there were always people who were unclear on the concept of the race and raced hard for the first sprint thinking that they were going to win the race. It wasn't till after the race that they found out they had actually "won" 6th place.

I think the reverse win & out would be fun. As someone who prefers breakaway and just sits up in any bunch sprint situation, I could imagine breaking away early for 6th (and not having to try and hold off the pack the last 5 laps).

It would be real interesting to be in a 2-4 man break coming into the "sprint" for 6th. Someone would have to take it for the good of the group or they'd risk getting caught by the pack.

Wente ran a Win N Out for the Masters a couple of years and I thought it worked out extremely well. There didn't seem to be any safety issues.

Also riders choosing to sprint tend to have a little bit of a gap over the field that is not sprinting, so it isn't as if they are sitting up in the middle of a field doing 40. Only those contesting that particular sprint are going that fast.

The "it" that I like is the reverse Win N Out.

I am rider who would likely go for that insurance policy of a 6th, 7th or 8th in a solo or small break effort rather than sprint it out against better sprinters.

This format makes crits far more appealing to this road and MTB racer.

I think we should give safety a consideration here. It's always a little more dangerous to have riders sitting up after their sprint because their race is over while the pack is getting the bell in a win & & out. And to have riders sprinting into the back of the pack in a miss & out.

It's a little different at the track--fields are smaller, gears are fixed, no one has brakes. And the track racers are more used to these formats and the issues they cause as far as safety goes.

I'm all for doing things a little differently, I'm just saying that you need to look at these issues when deciding on your format and which fields to offer it to. A points race would seem the safest of the various track-like options for a criterium.

You must watch different Won and Outs than I do Warren. Most of the time if 2 or more people go seriously for the win in a Win and out only the person who wins the first sprint normally places. In many cases if you don;t win the first sprint you are to blown out to contest seriously for any of the additional sprints. The only exception is is the first two or 3 or 4 riders get a large enough gap during the first sprint to possibly hold off the rest of the field during the following sprints. I've seen lots of cases where a rider got 2nd in the first sprint and then pushed on to try and win the second sprint only to be beaten in the send sprint and then doesn't place in the 3rd sprint. That is actually part of the fun for the spectators is to watch someone just keep getting beat to the finish line so they have to keep going.

Let's face ti both the Win and out and the Reverse Win and out are gimmick races that are mean to put a little variety into a racing program. If you want to only run races that give the best riders the best chance of winning then you are going to have to drastically cut down on the number of races run at the track.

Yes, I know what the reverse win and out is. I don't like it because it doesn't really reward the best riders if they all go for the final sprint. The whole race dynamic is kind of weird. Like a handicap race where the worst riders are given such a big head start that the best riders have no real chance to catch them. You end up with a kind of, well, what did that race prove?

In a normal win and out the best riders or the most assertive riders will be able to give all for the win, and if they don't win that sprint they can still go for second or third place on the later laps.

I think the point a lap or similar is a better choice for a criterium because it rewards riders who race hard throughout, and keeps the race active every lap. The tactics are certainly more interesting than we see at most criteriums, especially in the lower categories where successful breaks are rare so everyone just hangs around until going nuts in the last two laps of the race.

And if you let some guys go off the front for half the race figuring you'll catch them before the end, it could be that they will have already won the race. And I know from experience, point-a-laps are hard races to win, and there are no easy laps.

Ron likes "it". What is "it"?

I like it.

Warren - Note that Jess and I were talking about what I call a reverse Win and Out. IN the reverse Win and out the winner of the first sprint is 6th ( or what ever your lowest prize/point placing is) and the winner of the second sprint is 5th and so on until the final sprint where the winner of the last sprint is the winner of the race. I have done this race at the track a few times and it is an interesting race from a tactical stand point. Naturally the best sprinters don;t go for the early sprints. This gives riders who normally don;t do well in the sprints a chance to win a sprint.

The real interesting part comes as you get down to the final sprints. What happens when you have 4 very good sprinters left in the race but only two prize/point positions left. At some point some of the good sprinters have to decide to sprint early or risk losing out if they wait till the final sprint and don't win the final sprint.. It makes for an interesting spectator race since you get to see who feels they are a top sprinter and who has the confidence to hold back and wait for the final all or nothing sprint. As I also said it is good for some of the lesser sprinters since they get a chance to fight between themselves in the early sprints while the top sprinters sit back and play the waiting game.