Right.

Well the 35+ 1/2/3s are fed from several sources.
1. Aging 1s.
2. Aging 2s
3. Aging 3s
4. Upgrading Masters riders moving up the ranks.
5. 45+ Masters racing down in age.

Without a bit of category engineering, I don't see a fix.

Ron

Interesting at Burlingame Crit today how it was the 35+ 1/2/3s were the only group that reached their field limit and started with full field.

Interesting stats from the Burlingame Crit

Cat.........Pre-Reg......No Show.......Race Day entry.....Field Size
4..............79..............18......................1.....................62
45+..........51..............8........................2.....................45
55+..........10..............0........................0.....................10
65+..........2................0........................0.....................2
3..............72..............7........................9.....................74
35+ 4.......82..............18.......................4....................68
35+ 1/2/3.100.............7........................7....................100
Pro/1/2.....71...............1........................31..................101
W 1/2/3....30...............1........................14...................43

497 pre reged riders. 60 no shows, 68 race day entries total entries 505 106 riders rode in 2 or more categories.

If this trend continues will we start seeing complaints that we need to unclog the 35+ 1/2/3 field??? :)

parrishioner wrote:

I know it's not always possible to plan 4 weeks ahead for racing. But if you do plan ahead, especially for classic races like Copper that are likely to sell out, you will dramatically improve your chances of getting to do the races you want to do, in the fields you want to race in. If you wait to sign up, you're rolling the dice.

I mostly agree with that, but "no refund" policies mean you'd also dramatically "improve" your chances of paying for races you can't attend. I'm not saying that organizers shouldn't have such policies, just that for many it's not exactly as easy as picking the races you'd hope to do and signing up for each as soon as its registration opens.

parrishioner wrote:
I know it's not always possible to plan 4 weeks ahead for racing. But if you do plan ahead, especially for classic races like Copper that are likely to sell out, you will dramatically improve your chances of getting to do the races you want to do, in the fields you want to race in. If you wait to sign up, you're rolling the dice.

As Casey pointed out, Copp has not filled up in past years. Since they repaved the roads and it has a reputation, more folks are interested for whatever reason. That is the reason I waited to sign up for the race. I know two of my teammates did not sign up because they were so surprised that there a waiting list and didn't want to risk not being able to race (I thought that was silly). Your point is spot on though. Sign up early, or pay the consequences.

What is also interesting is in other road races in previous years that had large fields (80-100) the promoters would break the field in half. It then became a "fun" race, as you need 50 starters for upgrade points. The rules have now changed, and some of my training partners are looking forward to this year and next. Especially since most of us are lucky if we can squeeze in 10 races a year.

Thank you for your comments Casey, yes, I agree safety is important. Even more so now that I was a corner marshall at a crit (boy the 4s and 5s are a crazy bunch).

One thing I would say about copper and field size is though the road is narrow, that first climb will typicaly get rid of about half the field so your not gonna have 100+ riders together for more than a few minutes. I know in the 3's we only had 15-18 guys left in the field after lap 3 and dropped alot of guys on the first 2 laps. I think it's worse to have a huge field at a race like merco or snelling where very few guys are dropped (snelling this year being an exception due to the wind).

Registration for Copperopolis opened on 2/10 this year. I signed up a couple weeks later (on 2/25) and got into the 4-A group quite comfortably- there were still about 40 slots left. And IIRC the waitlist/second group wasn't opened until at least a week after that.

I know it's not always possible to plan 4 weeks ahead for racing. But if you do plan ahead, especially for classic races like Copper that are likely to sell out, you will dramatically improve your chances of getting to do the races you want to do, in the fields you want to race in. If you wait to sign up, you're rolling the dice.

Copperopolis was/is a special case. Velo Promo opened up a second race instead of doing a wait list. You would have to ask why they decided not to combine the two races of Cat 4s on race day. I suspect the reason probably involves having second thought about running a field of almost 100 Cat 4s on those roads. Remember as I always say the field limits are suppose to be set based on what the course can safely accommodate. In the past it hasn't been an issue of stating a 100 field limit for the Cat 4s since they have not really approached that many riders in the past in the 4s. This year they actually had 100 riders sign up for the Cat 4s. I think the decision was made to go with a smaller number of Cat 4s in the A group by not moving any of the Cat 4 B group into A group to take the place of any no shows. This was probably a good move for safety sake given the width and conditions of some of those roads. Hopefully next year the field size for the Cat 4s will be adjusted down to a more reasonable and safe size.

Note that in the past couple of years the decision has been made to split the 35+ 4/5s into two smaller groups, again most likely for safety reasons . I'm never going to complain about having smaller fields for the sake of having safer races.

Casey,

You have posted about no-shows at races. I think all of your points are valid that you have made in this thread in relation to all the numbers you have posted in different discussion (and i agree with you). Although the no-shows do not open up racing spots on race day. I was one of the 10 riders at Copperopolis in the Elite 4s. One of my teammates had signed up early and was injured and could not race. I spoke to three people at Velo Promo and they would not allow me to race with the main field of 80-100 even though it was garaunteed that one rider was not going to get a race number for that event. My point is, just because folks are not showing up, does not mean that race day entrants are being allowed to race or are given the option to race in place of the no shows. Racing a road race with 9 other folks in the 4 is no fun. Huge power differences.

Also. for those that were not in my ten person race. Half way up the first climb it turned into an ITT for most of the race. Three guys regrouped later on, but it was a solo effort for the rest of us. I pointed out the top three guys in the race before we got to the climb. It was obvious some folks were just "passing through" the 4s category.

When I decided to take up bike racing this year, the advice I got from other Masters was to avoid the 45+ open category, and either race the 35+4/5 or Elite4/5. I was told it was even easier to hold onto the front group or main pack in the elite 3's then the 45+ open, and that many Masters who upgraded to 3's preferred racing against the aggressive young dudes in the elite 3's than the Cat1-2 Masters. The races I've done in the Elite4/5's were easier than the 35+4/5's, and some of the strongest competition in the Elite4/5's was from guys over 35. I've now upgraded to Cat4, and have had a few top 10 finishes and mostly top 20, but there's no way I'll ever want to upgrade to 3's. At 52, I can't realistically look forward to getting stronger and faster every year for the next 10 years, and with family and career responsibilities I can't presume to always be able to train for 10+ hours a week year in and year out. The best solution is what I already see happening: B and C waves opening up in the Masters4/5 when the first one fills; more races with Masters Cat3's separate from the Cat1-2's; Masters racing with the Elites when their categories fill. It would be nice to see some of these very fast Cat4 Masters upgraded, but I can't blame them for not wanting to.

Just an interesting note from Mt. Hamilton. While the Cat 4 race filled up early on race day there were 25 ( or 29) riders who pre-reged but didn't show up. This means that on race day they had plenty of room for more Cat 4 riders. In total they had 119 riders who pre-reged for Hamilton who didn't show up on race day.

casey wrote:Since I'm looking for an excuse to avoid doing something that is actually productive I though I'd keep tracking the number of riders in each category this year vs last year at the same time.

.........................2008..........2007
Total riders.........3475..........3434
Cat 5 men...........912............907
Cat 4 men...........983...........1010
Cat 4 women.......262............278
Cat 3 men...........636............607
Cat 3 women.......119............117
Cat 2 men...........329............320
Cat 2 women........74..............68
Cat 1 men..........118..............93
Cat 1 women.......42...............32

It looks like the gap between the number of Cat 4s last year vs this year is growing so it looks like the Cat 4s are not experiencing a bottleneck in terms of upgrading. The increase in Cat 3s and higher vs last year is also growing. I'm starting to feel that the new upgrade guidelines is playing a role in this increase in Cat 3 and higher riders vs last year.

Hey, just to chime in here (as usual). I think Casey and Warren are right. There isn't a problem with the system now. The experience upgrade option is more than reasonable IMHO.

Furthermore, from reading all three pages I get the feeling there is this sense of *entitlement* for upgrades. That couldn't be further from the truth.

NO ONE IS ENTITLED TO UPGRADE. It is something that must be earned. If there is a bottle neck (which Casey has empirically show to not exist) then it should be there.

What is all this rush to upgrade anyway? We're all in this for fun. You wouldn't want to be handed an upgrade and not deserve or have earned it like the others would you? Some people just need to accept that their physical/mental limit is the category they are in. Then enjoy the sport in that category.

The only just reason I see for rushing to upgrade is for safety reasons.

There are a number of ways to increase safety if that's the main issue.

For one I'd say make it harder to get out of the 5's. 10 mass starts doesn't mean anything. Make it points based, and change the 5's crit race format to increase the constant speed. That will trim out those who are not inshape faster and keep the race safe. One suggestion is to make the 5's crit races an on road points race, with sprints every 2 laps (or 1 lap for a circuit) and points awarded 5 deep on each sprint. That will keep the pace high and reduce the significance of the sprint at the end.

In anycase, keep up the good work Casey. I think things are fine.

Since I'm looking for an excuse to avoid doing something that is actually productive I though I'd keep tracking the number of riders in each category this year vs last year at the same time.

.........................2008..........2007
Total riders.........3475..........3434
Cat 5 men...........912............907
Cat 4 men...........983...........1010
Cat 4 women.......262............278
Cat 3 men...........636............607
Cat 3 women.......119............117
Cat 2 men...........329............320
Cat 2 women........74..............68
Cat 1 men..........118..............93
Cat 1 women.......42...............32

It looks like the gap between the number of Cat 4s last year vs this year is growing so it looks like the Cat 4s are not experiencing a bottleneck in terms of upgrading. The increase in Cat 3s and higher vs last year is also growing. I'm starting to feel that the new upgrade guidelines is playing a role in this increase in Cat 3 and higher riders vs last year.

Mad Axeman wrote:There is a bottle neck in the 3s as well.

As a rider who has raced Masters 1/2/3 for several years and was denied upgrade points even for podium finishes, I see a lot of familiar faces now racing the 3s.
It's virtually young guys moving through the ranks verses their dads who feel the Masters have gotten a little too serious.
Those 35+ and 40+ 3s who have been racing a while have a lot of experience, but might be lacking some of the genetic gifts that many of the ex-pros and World Champs in the Masters field bring to the table.

Maybe this is a good time to split the Masters 1/2/3 up, or change the age grouping to match some of the other states who 30+, 40+, and 50+.
Just tossing out ideas, maybe a solution will morph.

-R

I love this idea. I agree that the Masters 1/2/3s could be broken up so that more Masters 3s or Masters 3/4 had their own category since there are so many Masters 4/5 riders upgrading.

In the Cat3 race at Wente, I think we may have only had half the field finish. There is obviously a big range of abilities in the 3s right now, and plenty of room and need for this new category. I think that more 4/5s would be less apt to sandbag, and let's face it, there aren't a lot of Masters 3 riders who are going to hang very well in the 1/2/3s anyway, especially in road races.

My .02

There is too much disparity in skill between the Mst 4s and Mst 123s even for road races and I am not a fan of mixing these CATs at all.

If you are a strong 4 then it should not take long to upgrade to a 3 even in big fields. The 35 4/5s fields have been large and competitive for awhile. You're either putting in the training time, learning the finer points and finding your way to the front or you are not - sometimes there is a little luck depending on circumstances. Make sure you are picking races that suit your stengths, read MH's old blog for tips, hire a coach, join a team with stronger and experienced riders or all of the above.

Cheers,

JD

A CAT 3 upgrade is something to earned – I had to.

I do not want to see CAT 4’s schuffled up to the 3’s just to ease the CAT 4 filed size – forget it! Plus The 3’s fields are full this year. If you can’t place in the 4’s you’re going to be a mess in the 3’s or 35+123 fields – not to mention lack of experience and bike handling skills.

As mentioned – maybe more races would help. But certainly not easier upgrades!!!!

As I said at the end of my post above I don't know if the higher number of cat 3+ riders is due to easier upgrade guidelines this year or simple retaining more higher category riders. I'll have to wait till the end of the year to see if the number of upgrades I've done is significantly higher than last year.

Related to racing issues, it is more relevant to look at the number of riders actually racing, not just how many have licenses.

The racing and training weather has been exceptionally nice this season.

Also consider how many of the current 4's only started racing last year or the year before, when we had surges of new 5's.

actually, all the lower categories are down just a tiny bit (including women), but there's an increase in both men's and women's 1/2/3 numbers.

Casey, can you attribute this to the change in upgrade requirements? In other words, has it become easier to upgrade from 4 to 3, 3 to 2, and 2 to 1?

Following up on the number of riders in each category year to date for this year compared to last year.

...................2008........................2007
total riders.....3429.......................3408
Cat 5.............905.........................908
Cat 4 men......968.........................987
Cat 4 women..256.........................278
Cat 3 Men.......630.........................607
Cat 3 women...117.........................115
Cat 2 men.......324..........................319
Cat 2 women...74............................67
Cat 1 men.......115...........................93
Cat 1 women...40.............................32

so the total number of Cat 4s and 5s are down a bit from last year while all other categories are showing larger numbers than last year. Looks like the new riders coming into the sport is down a bit ( couple mean an end to the growing membership in this area) while the upper categories are growing. Not sure if the growing numbers in the higher categories are due to increased/easier upgrading this year or better retention of higher category riders compared to last year.

Yes, there were more crashes in that Martinez 35+ field than there were cat 4s and most 4s did not last that long. I've heard the cat 4 bashing from that race - the 4s I knew in the race are all very experienced and pretty fine bike handlers (except me perhaps!). Not to say one of the crashes was NOT caused by a cat 4 - the 3 or so cashes in the E4/5 were probably caused by a cat 4. Hey, that's more than I've seen all year - could it be the course as Merkeley said? Anyway, hope all injured heal well and do not hold ill-will against an entire racing category. Some of you were 4s not long ago.

I like Mike H's idea of opening up the RRs to be 35+1/2/3/4 - only a very fit or foolish 4 (or late registering) would opt for the longer race at a higher pace. Less likely to do some damage too, I imagine.

I don't think most Cat 4's would choose to race the open 35+ races anyway (although I think they're great learning opportunities).

I've also heard the grumbling about Martinez. I did both the E4 race and the M35+ race at Martinez and IMHO pointing the finger at the 4's isn't justified. Checked in with a former teammate (Cat 2) who caused one of the crashes and he didn't think the 4's were to blame. His thought the crashes were the product of a technical course and agressive racing leading to a lot of burried pedals.

I think the Master's 1/2/3 racers might feel some antipathy toward racing with 4's. I'm a new cat 3 racing both Elite 3 and Master's 1/2/3 at some crits, and I heard a lot of grumbling about the sketchiness of the Master's 1/2/3/4 field at Martinez. It was honestly MUCH less safe than the Elite 3 race--which strongly counters my other experiences racing both categories at the same events this year.

I'm not saying that putting some 4's in with the master's 1/2/3 isn't a solution--only that I overheard a lot of negative responses at the last race where this occurred.

Chris is just looking for more people to torture.

I mean, come on, anyone who flushes live cats down a toilet then uses the photo in his online profile...

-R

One thing that could elevate some of the congestion for 35+ Cat 4’s who want to race but are denied due to the quick filling 35+ 4 and 35+ 4/5 fields would be to open up the 35+ 1/2/3 road races to 4’s. Many 35+ 1/2/3 fields have had plenty of room this year while the 35+ 4’s & 5’s have had a full field (pre-reg at least).

The masters district championships are already open to 4’s and 5’s, and many out of state stage races have 35+ 1/2/3/4 categories, so it’s not unheard of for 35+ 4’s to race with the 1/2/3’s.

A road race such as Pescadero (currently filled in the 35+ 4/5 with 10 on the waiting list, yet no one entered in the 35+ 1/2/3), could give 4’s the option of racing 47 miles in the 35+ 4/5’s or 75 miles in the 35+ 1/2/3/4’s.

(Though some may look at this as punishment for the 35+ 4's who don't register quickly enough. :twisted: )

Ron,

From my previous post I said.

Heck to many riders who are just strong have no problem getting the needed points and upgrading to Cat 3.

I already know that some riders are upgrading based on pure strength. I can also think of a few riders who have managed to upgrade to Cat 2 based on pure strength.

I also said in a previous post that even though I may not think a rider is ready to upgrade unless I have complaints about the person's riding skills I pretty much have to approve their upgrade.

In the ideal situation someone wouldn't be upgrading until they have enough strength, skill and knowledge ( part of winning is knowing how to win is many cases), unfortunately not everyone upgrades in an ideal situation.

"Just because someone is strong doesn't mean they have the pack handling skills or the knowledge needed to place high enough to earn the points they need to upgrade."

This statement is 2/3rds correct.
The 3 elements are:
1. Being Strong.
2. Handling Skills
3. Knowledge needed to place.

Casey is right on the money for the first two, but where his statement drifts from reality is in the knowledge portion.
To Casey's defense, this is simply for the fact that he is not in the pack actually seeing what is happening. Casey sees riders leave the start line and cross the finish. There is a whole bunch of missing content in between those two points.

In the 3s, which I am riding this year instead of the Masters 1/2/3s (kind of like downgrading) I am seeing plenty of strength, and plenty of ability to place.
However in many of those placings I am not seeing anything other than strength, handling skills and knowledge are missing at very high levels.

I can pick out a master in the 3s without seeing his face. It's because his experience is shown in his riding, in his pedaling, and in his pack handling skills. Many times it is his bike/pack handling skills and experience that are keeping him in the mix rather then fitness.

On the other hand, I am seeing riders getting good finishes after EXTREMELY poor handling, bad decisions, and unthoughtful/dangerous maneuvers.

Don't underestimate how much pure fitness can compensate for lack of pack skills and knowledge/experience.

Ron

Quote:But maybe people should ask themselves the important, underlying question, why aren't you fit enough to be competitive with cat 4's?
Too much vanilla ice cream.
Quote:If someone doesn't have the upgrade points needed to upgrade then they can't be a sandbagger. Sandbagging by definition is someone who has qualified for an upgrade but doesn't upgrade because they prefer to keep winning/placing well in the lower category. I actually use a stricter definition of sandbagging in that I think a true sandbagger is someone who has earned enough upgrade points to qualify for an automatic upgrade yet they still insist on not upgrading.
I would call that "intentional sandbagging," very different from "unintentional sandbagging." Sorry if that's an oxymoron, but I couldn't think of a better term for getting the point across.
Quote:In the races I've done over the last few years with large fields (60+) it seems like there is little difference between 6th and 16th in terms of fitness or skill. Going back to the 'Pack Finish' upgrade criteria for a moment, at first read it seemed like a logical extension of the 'top 10 rule'. In some ways, acknowledging that finishing in the top 10 in a field of 30 is different than finishing in the top 10 in a field of 100.
Now we're getting somewhere! :)

I don't specifically track upgrades on points vs upgrades on experience. I can tell you though that very few 4 to 3 upgrades are based on experience. If I had to guess at a specific percentage I'd say less than 5%.

Casey, just out of curiosity, do you track what percentage of those upgrades are top 10's and what percentage are on points?

In the races I've done over the last few years with large fields (60+) it seems like there is little difference between 6th and 16th in terms of fitness or skill. Going back to the 'Pack Finish' upgrade criteria for a moment, at first read it seemed like a logical extension of the 'top 10 rule'. In some ways, acknowledging that finishing in the top 10 in a field of 30 is different than finishing in the top 10 in a field of 100.

If someone doesn't have the upgrade points needed to upgrade then they can't be a sandbagger. Sandbagging by definition is someone who has qualified for an upgrade but doesn't upgrade because they prefer to keep winning/placing well in the lower category. I actually use a stricter definition of sandbagging in that I think a true sandbagger is someone who has earned enough upgrade points to qualify for an automatic upgrade yet they still insist on not upgrading. I try to track upgrade points and I do force someone to upgrade if they have reached the level of upgrade points where they have qualified for an automatic upgrading.

Just because someone is strong doesn't mean they have the pack handling skills or the knowledge needed to place high enough to earn the points they need to upgrade. Just being strong isn't grounds for upgrading. This is why time trials don't count towards upgrading. You are looking for the combination of being strong, have good pack skills, and being smart enough to put yourself into a position to win/place well. The riders who meet all of these requirements generally don't have a lot of trouble getting their upgrade to Cat 3. Heck to many riders who are just strong have no problem getting the needed points and upgrading to Cat 3. Since Jan 1st I've already done 75 4 to 3 upgrades. some of these riders upgrades after only doing a couple of races. Under the new upgrade guidelines a strong Cat 4 can upgrade after winning two road races with fields with over 50 riders. Personally I'm not sure that most riders will have all the skills and experience they need after only two Cat 4 races to be a safe and good Cat 3 rider but as long as I don;t have a bunch of complaints about someone knocking down his fellow Cat 4s I do approve the upgrade request if the rider has the needed points.

Strong 35+ 4's can win in the 4's races and impact the race. Upgrading to a 3 and then racing with the 35+ cat 1,2,3's? No more wins for the foreseeable future and very little influence on most of the races until, if they become as fit as strong 3's.

But maybe people should ask themselves the important, underlying question, why aren't you fit enough to be competitive with cat 4's?

Somehow the discussion drifted to a focus on quick registration fill-ups, which originally I thought was related to what I think is the real problem. I now do not believe there is a relationship. If registration is the only issue then I would whole-heartedly agree that easier upgrades is NOT the solution, for the very reasons as stated above!

Gong back to my original post, I was making the observation that there seems to be a lot of really strong guys at the top of the M4's who are sorta stuck there ("unintentional sandbaggers"). Many of these guys should be in the 3's but are "bottlenecked" due to limited upgrade throughput. Casey is a numbers guy who did a great job on the registration issue, but I am not sure how to quantify unintentional sandbagging. Maybe it's just my perception...after all, I am a distant observer from closer to the bottom end. If the top M4's who are slugging it out together race after race don't agree with me then I'll throw in the towel and shut the hell up.

Although I can't fathom a solution to the pre-reg/no-show dilemma (which is actually a profit-boon for the promoter, so that's good), I can suggest a solution to ease the early sell-out problem. It's a solution that more and more races are adopting ... you guessed it, Warren ...
MORE 35+ 3/4, 35+ 3, 35+ 4 AND 45+ 3/4 FIELDS!

Frankly, how about some masters-only races with multiple permutations of the ages? No reason for Minden to be the only one. Lets' feed the ravenous hordes!

2450MHz wrote:The pack rule (which I wish I had known about before my original post) is already conveniently in place and makes for a workable solution. Maybe not exactly as written but with some alterations to suit (assuming some latitude is allowed).

This is crazy! The problem sounds like online reg/no-shows in a handful of cat 4 masters races. So...upgrade people who suck wheel in the pack and have contact at the finish so they can enter 3's or masters 123 instead and get flicked? Believe me if you aren't getting consistent front of the pack finishes in 4's the masters 123 field is going to be no fun at all.

If you are only missing them because you can't even get in that's a different story but casey's numbers don't seem to say that. It is still very early in the year too.

R4L

Maybe there should be a percentage cap for online pre-reg, that way there is always something left for race day.

Sorry I don't think the data supports the idea that there is a real problem. Going back and looking at the results I can only find two possible races where the actual number of riders who showed up on race day filled the field in the Cat 4s. Those two races are Snelling and the Merco RR. From the results I have and other Info it appears that no other Cat 4 races actually reached the field limit on race day.

To support my position that it is online Reg and not an actual glut of riders I offer these two examples. Land Park and Bariani are both races that reached their field limits in the 4s pretty early in the online Reg process. On the actual race day the Land Park Cat 4 race had 88 starters with an additional 22 riders who were listed as Did not start. Even though the online pre-reg filled for Land Park there were 22 starting positions that went unused that day.

Again Bariani filled the Cat 4 field in pre reg. On the actual race day there were 91 riders who started which means there were 9 unused starting slots. There were 18 riders who were listed as Did not start so this time they had 18 riders who pre-reged and didn't show up on race day.

At Copperopolis they had so many pre-entries they added a second field for the Cat 4 men. Of course on race day the main field of Cat 4s only had 78 riders show up ( again 22 riders listed as Did not start for the main Cat 4 group) and the second group of Cat 4s only had 10 riders in it.

Upgrading more riders is not going to solve the problem of people who pre-reg early and help fill the field and then they don't show up on race day. While the riders who pre-reg and then don't show up help the promoters profit they do tend to discourage riders who don't decide to race until late and then may be discouraged from showing up on race day due to seeing the field has filled and a fair number of people on the wait list. In reality it looks like most of the time there has been room for race day reg people to still get into the Cat 4 field due to the large number of pre-reg people who don't show up.

How do we solve the problem of the early pre-regs who don't show up? Maybe if promoters offered full or partial entry fee refunds then maybe more riders who decide late they will not show up would contact the promoter ahead of time and then the promoter could advertise that they have room in the race due to no shows a day or two before the race. This might encourage more race day entries, which, with late entry fees might offset the pre-reg refunds and promoter hassle.

Solving a problem that doesn't actually exist will not improve things. Figuring out what the actual problem is ( if there is one) is the first step to solving any problem. Also remember that the early season races are always larger in terms of field sizes and as we get farther into the season the field sizes typically drop off.

Quote:Ok just to complete the picture started above. Here is the comparison of the number of men in each category year to date vs last year at the same date.

Cat 2007 2008
5 872 884
4 959 937
3 591 611
2 307 308
1 93 109

Well, data certainly doesn't lie. Obviously the glut the 4's are feeling this year isn't due to growth in numbers. On-line registration might be partly to blame but probably not entirely. Doesn't matter. Whatever the cause, a glut is a glut and it needs to be relieved.

As Casey pointed out earlier, the upgrade rule changes that took effect this year might well solve the problem. After all, it might need only a small tweek, a quarter-turn of the needle valve. Hopefully we'll know by the end of the season.

Meanwhile, some forward thinking and contingency plans would be nice. What if the glut remains or gets worse as the season wears on? The pack rule (which I wish I had known about before my original post) is already conveniently in place and makes for a workable solution. Maybe not exactly as written but with some alterations to suit (assuming some latitude is allowed).

However, some of the points Casey made in that thread two years ago (see SWOO earlier in this thread) are still applicable. For example, currently the finishers in the leading pack are not being identified. The means to do that (i.e. finish line camera) is already in place, so lets start doing it. My suggestion: put an asterisk somewhere with each pack finisher (e.g. after the riders name, place or bib number). It's not complicated, but it does require some sort of formal process to be established. Other deterrents may exist, so let's identify and resolve them rather than just leave them as road blocks. The problem is real, no question about it, and it might still need a solution.

If normal economic theories play out, the increase in demand at good prices will lead to an increase in supply. IOW, more riders wanting to race should lead to more races being offered to a point where the number of riders in each race is about what is used to be.

Clubs and race organizers can, and do make a decent amount of money with certain types of races. Pescadero, not much. Land Park, definitely yes.

Even some track races are making money now, although most of those profits are getting put right back into programs.

casey wrote:
Over the past several years I have tracked how many upgrades I've issued. During that time there has pretty much been a pattern. The number of 4 to 3 upgrades will be roughly 1/2 the number of the 5 to 4 upgrades and the number of 3 to 2 upgrades is roughly 1/2 the number of 4 to 3 upgrades. In 2006 there was a big jump in overall upgrades. This in part was due to the new rule that mixed category races that had Cat 5s in them were limited to 75 riders. Some races started doing 35+ Cat 4 races instead of 35+ 4/5 races. This caused some riders who qualified for an upgrade but never bothered to get it to finally get their Cat 4 upgrades. Yet we also saw an increase in the overall number of 4 to 3 upgrades.

Just for reference in 2002 I did the following number of upgrades

5 to 4 152 upgrades
4 to 3 101 upgrades
3 to 2 44 upgrades

Last year I did the following number of upgrades.

5 to 4 420
4 to 3 248
3 to 2 91

In 2006 I did the following upgrades.

5 to 4 423
4 to 3 240
3 to 2 112

What is the ratio of Masters upgrades compared to Elites? It's the M's 4 that are filling first. Be willing to bet the E4's are filling because of the overflow from Masters. M 3's may be having a difficult time upgrading because of competing with M1/2's on top of past scoring.

Ok just to complete the picture started above. Here is the comparison of the number of men in each category year to date vs last year at the same date.

Cat 2007 2008
5 872 884
4 959 937
3 591 611
2 307 308
1 93 109

2450MHZ - according to the demographics numbers we had 959 Cat 4 men in our region at this time last year. This year we only have 937 Cat 4 men in our region. The fact is we currently have fewer Cat 4 men this year compared to last year. If Pescadero filled up faster this year it isn't because there are more Cat 4 men chasing after those entry positions. There were 687 35+ Cat 4 men last year at this time vs 674 35+ Cat 4 men this year so again there are fewer riders chasing after the same number of entry positions.

I think with more people registered with sportsbase this year ( due to Velo Promo using Sportsbase) this is probably why Pescadero filled up faster. Also people have seen how fast races are filling up this year so they are making sure to register as soon as they can after Reg opens to try in insure their positions in the race. Again how many of these riders who are entering as soon as Reg opens will end up not doing the race because of health reasons, or something else comes up in their life?

Quote:The new upgrade guidelines for this year make it easier for good riders to earn upgrade points. Remember in the past if a race didn't have 30 riders it wasn't worth any upgrade points for a Cat 4 looking to upgrade to Cat 3. Now a race can have as few as 5 riders in it to get upgrade points to at least 3 places. Likewise in road races there are more upgrade points available to more places. Now in a RR with 11 riders upgrade points go to 6 places, in RRs with 21 riders upgrade points go to 7 places and in RRs with 51 + riders upgrade points go to 9 places.

Indeed, maybe the new rules this year will help open the gates. If no other changes this year then we'll see if that fixes things.

Quote:The problem isn't a bottle neck that has been formed, it is simply that more people are entering races. Actually in some cases a lot of people are pre-entering certain races yet on race day everyone on the waiting list, who shows up, gets into the race. I think this is a case of be careful what you wish for. Remember how lots of people were griping about how come Velo Promo didn't get with the modern age and do online pre-reg? In the past when Velo Promo had mail in pre-entry fewer people pre-entered and races took more time to fill up ( if they filled up at all). Now that Velo Promo has online pre-reg it is easier for people to pre-reg. It looks like in some cases people are pre-reging even before they know if they can race on that day.

If it was only VP races that filled up quickly then I'd agree, but it's not. Pescadero filled by the time I left work that day (last Friday). Similar with several other non-VP races. This year there are now a LOT more M4's trying to get into the fields than last year.

Quote:Over the past several years I have tracked how many upgrades I've issued. During that time there has pretty much been a pattern. The number of 4 to 3 upgrades will be roughly 1/2 the number of the 5 to 4 upgrades and the number of 3 to 2 upgrades is roughly 1/2 the number of 4 to 3 upgrades.

So in two cases the outflow is half the inflow just due to upgrades. Now add new cat 5's for 4/5 fields. And this doesn't result in a bottleneck?

Ron,

There has always been more people upgrading from 5 to 4 than there have been from 4 to 3. Each year there are people who quit racing for some reason and probably more of these people who quit racing are 4s and 3s. Looking at the demographics from 2006 and 2007 it shows an increase of 74 in the number of Cat 4s. Considering there were more racing opportunities for Cat 4s in 2007 than in 2006 ( thanks to new races and new categories like the growing number of 45+ 4/5 races) I don't think these additional 74 riders are creating a huge bottleneck. Yes some very popular races are going to have tighter competition for the fixed number entry slots they have but this will be a problem no matter what the upgrade policy is as long as the overall number of racers keeps growing.

I did a quick comparison looking at last year's races from Jan through the end of April. I compared how many upgrade positions were available under the old upgrade guidelines vs the new upgrade guidelines.

For Cat 4s there were 186 upgrade positions in the time period under the old upgrade guidelines vs 230 upgrade positions under the new guidelines.

For 35+ Cat 4s there were 150 upgrade positions under the old system vs 194 positions under the new system.

For Cat 3s ( just looking at elite 3 races) there were 140 upgrade positions under the old system vs 238 upgrade positions under the new system.

As I said before there are more upgrade points up for grabs under the new upgrade system. This will naturally lead to more upgrades happening overall. Still having more upgrades happen doesn't do anything to address the problem of a race like Snelling where you have 100 entry positions available to 35+ 4/5 riders and you have say 150 riders who want those positions. Speeding up the upgrade process will do little to help individual races that have a fixed number of entry slots as long as you have more riders who want those sports than there are spots available. All a faster upgrade process will do is fill up the higher category races quicker than they currently do

How do you take those numbers and not see that there is a bottle neck?

Put the total number of the last two years of 5 to 4 upgrades together then subtract out the 4 to 3 upgrades for the same period and you are left with 355 new Cat 4s.

Add 355 new cat 4s to the number of career cat 4s and what do you get?

Maybe other industries are different, but in traffic engineering when a traffic signal allows fewer cars through the intersection than what is queuing, we call it a bottle neck or choke point.
Clearly there is a choke point at the Cat 4 level, with one to follow in the 3s.

-R

Just a few comments.

The new upgrade guidelines for this year make it easier for good riders to earn upgrade points. Remember in the past if a race didn't have 30 riders it wasn't worth any upgrade points for a Cat 4 looking to upgrade to Cat 3. Now a race can have as few as 5 riders in it to get upgrade points to at least 3 places. Likewise in road races there are more upgrade points available to more places. Now in a RR with 11 riders upgrade points go to 6 places, in RRs with 21 riders upgrade points go to 7 places and in RRs with 51 + riders upgrade points go to 9 places. These same field sizes and points apply to Cat 3s looking to upgrade to Cat 2. In all in road races now there are a lot more points up for grabs to more riders.

The problem isn't a bottle neck that has been formed, it is simply that more people are entering races. Actually in some cases a lot of people are pre-entering certain races yet on race day everyone on the waiting list, who shows up, gets into the race. I think this is a case of be careful what you wish for. Remember how lots of people were griping about how come Velo Promo didn't get with the modern age and do online pre-reg? In the past when Velo Promo had mail in pre-entry fewer people pre-entered and races took more time to fill up ( if they filled up at all). Now that Velo Promo has online pre-reg it is easier for people to pre-reg. It looks like in some cases people are pre-reging even before they know if they can race on that day.

Over the past several years I have tracked how many upgrades I've issued. During that time there has pretty much been a pattern. The number of 4 to 3 upgrades will be roughly 1/2 the number of the 5 to 4 upgrades and the number of 3 to 2 upgrades is roughly 1/2 the number of 4 to 3 upgrades. In 2006 there was a big jump in overall upgrades. This in part was due to the new rule that mixed category races that had Cat 5s in them were limited to 75 riders. Some races started doing 35+ Cat 4 races instead of 35+ 4/5 races. This caused some riders who qualified for an upgrade but never bothered to get it to finally get their Cat 4 upgrades. Yet we also saw an increase in the overall number of 4 to 3 upgrades.

Just for reference in 2002 I did the following number of upgrades

5 to 4 152 upgrades
4 to 3 101 upgrades
3 to 2 44 upgrades

Last year I did the following number of upgrades.

5 to 4 420
4 to 3 248
3 to 2 91

In 2006 I did the following upgrades.

5 to 4 423
4 to 3 240
3 to 2 112

The past two years have been fairly stable in terms of the number of upgrades to each category after seeing a pretty big jump in the total number of upgrade from 2005 to 2006. Last year we had single low single digit growth in terms of total number of licensed riders. This year the growth in total riders is even lower than last year so I think the problem is more one of ease of pre entry vs just sheer number of riders. Still I'm generally in favor of more races being held, as long as you don;t have two races of the same type being held close enough together to each other that they hurt each other's turnout.

C-M's idea is not terrible.

I am not a huge fan of starting a race with 4s who may likely have a total of 10 or 11 races under their belt, but it is doable.

Of course in this district even the best ideas are falling on deaf ears.

If I understand it correctly, at the track your Cat 2 status on the road has credibility.
If that is the case, why not do the same for road categories for those who are Semi-Pro and Cat 2 Cyclocross?

Seems that we might have ways of unclogging the system sitting right in front of us.

-R

Mstrs 35+ 1/2, Mstr 35+ 3/4 and all 5's race together. 1/2 may get smaller. 3/4 will be large fields, makeing it easier for 3's to upgrade. 4's have to become faster. Will discourage 5's from upgradeing to soon; 10 race upgrade rule gets eliminated.

There is a bottle neck in the 3s as well.

As a rider who has raced Masters 1/2/3 for several years and was denied upgrade points even for podium finishes, I see a lot of familiar faces now racing the 3s.
It's virtually young guys moving through the ranks verses their dads who feel the Masters have gotten a little too serious.
Those 35+ and 40+ 3s who have been racing a while have a lot of experience, but might be lacking some of the genetic gifts that many of the ex-pros and World Champs in the Masters field bring to the table.

Maybe this is a good time to split the Masters 1/2/3 up, or change the age grouping to match some of the other states who 30+, 40+, and 50+.
Just tossing out ideas, maybe a solution will morph.

-R

Thanks, Steve. I have to confess that I didn't know about the USAC pack finish rule. But if I understand Casey's position back then, and assuming it still applies now, it is not being applied here.

One of my other points is that, at least from my distant perspective, most of the pack finishers today can handle themselves in a cat 3 race. That might not have been the case even as recently as last year. Not true? I know a few recent upgraders who seem to be doing OK. So at the time of that thread (two years ago) Casey's position might well have been justified. Is it still today?

you only need 10 top 10 finishes to upgrade to a Cat 3. If your not able to accomplish that in the 4's, you won't have any fun getting crushed in the 3's every week.