one item left unmentioned as far as i can tell is role of clubs/teams.

new riders to the district should be encouraged/directed/urged to join a local club. the "meet the clubs" at the early birds is great, but not enough. perhaps part of the upgrade criteria (as an option) can be to join a club.

also, there is plenty of room to add mandates to the clubs to educate their own. and there is ample opportunity with the variety of training groups/rides all around the area. new riders, after joining clubs, can also be made to earn a letter of recommendation from their club officers as part of the upgrade criteria.

lastly: promoters must make room for the 4's and the 5's. the demographics of the district demand it. and, as has been mentioned above, experience is what really counts. they need to be allowed the opportunity to race.

-- alex.

yes hopefully the board has noticed that the same discussion has been taking place on the Yahoo Group AND on this Forum. can we consolidate these? no reason to monitor and post on both for the same topic with the same people!

And the "crash happy 3s" will get addressed when we raise our upgrade standards and make safe, smart racing a prerequisite. sounds like everyone is in violent agreement after the last three days of posts. Now we just need a policy that will raise the bar and weed out the kooks.

While you're editing Zebster - I wanna hear how you mentored a Women's 5 race...

P.S. Just a suggestion - post those Motions here too. Some folks use one electronic forum, some others. Since you're being good enough to share your opinions and intentions, share widely.

'Course, none of this resolves the issues about the Crash happy Elite 3s...

Oh, I've been reading the server posts ;) Managing to hold back my .02 so far. I figured the 3/4 was a typo but couldn't resist as that was the only race I won last year.

No, Jeff, it's my damned Droid. The keyboard is too narrow for my fat fingers. I meant to rage at the 35+4/5 category, but it came out "3/4." Of course, it was 6:30 am and I was on the spin bike an hour into my workout, so the fingers were slimy anyway. But I guess that's too much information.

Since this morning, you may have seen on the mail server that I've authored a motion for the next NCNCA meeting to prevent elite and masters races from mixing higher cat's with 5's, effective 2011 season. We'll see how that goes.

Uh, did I miss something? 35+ 3/4 is a problem too? Pretty sure I raced one in Napa last year ;)

Vinokurt, that's enough to REALLY PISS ME OFF! The 35+4/5 category must be SCRAPPED!! It's a repository of poor skills mixed with bad attitudes resulting in lost skin and income!!

For my mind, any promoter who includes that ill-considered category in their race is simply saying "I care more about selling entries than I do about the safety of the peloton." I've mentored 7 races this year in the Elite and Womens' 5's and seen ONE crash, and that includes Cherry Pie, a very hazardous race (which had NONE). The presence of mentors makes a difference.

We should not mentor the 4/5's - any mixed 5's category should be OUTLAWED. Simple.

I think adding two training sessions to the ten starts is a great advance. Although it is not per se included in the USAC guidelines, they do specificaally anticipate the inclusion of training as an upgrade criterion.

Lets' make it happen.

A mass start upgrade criteria for a 4 upgrade isn't good. Neither is a points system. Neither pushes riders towards acquiring the pack riding skills and racing nous to be safe in these races. One requires a warm body, the other just measures motor size.

A framework I'd suggest is along these lines:

Minimum two clinics with instructor sign off that the rider has mastered the skills and knowledge presented.

Minimum 10 RACE DAYS (not starts, as long as we're still seeing the 35+ 4/5), with at least one race mentored. Involvement in a crash requires an additional 3 races days.

Pass a written test (online).

Meeting these requirements is the minimum, upgrade officials may use their discretion to deny upgrades based on other criteria (always DFL, complaints about behavior, Etc).

Rationale-

Right now a 35+ rider can do 2 weekends and one clinic and they upgrade. This is simply not enough time to digest and learn how to race your bike

Right now they don't have to get any instruction. None. Or ever be monitored or advised by a more experienced racer. This is completely insane.

Right now you could cause two major pileups, be a complete wobbly, and still upgrade. This is even more insane.

Pass a written test? Why not? Even if they cheat one or two of the concepts might sink in. If they are honest they might go read a book and learn something.

You missed the clinics? You still get to race, you just don't get to upgrade.

And finally in the long run you'll retain riders because they aren't going to do a couple of gladiator races and go "forget this". Which I've heard more than once, especially from the spouses who aren't keen on the ambulances.

And along those lines: Alan's mentoring program is awesome. But it leaves a big hole as long as it's being kept out of the 35+ 4/5. And it shows. I did three races the other weekend as a mentor, one of them was the 35+ 4/5 and because I wasn't sure about our role in a race that included 4's, I gave no talk before hand and limited my presence to the back of the field helping OTB guys, which turned out to be the right call according to the current structure of the program, which doesn't include combined races.

In the two Cat 5 races we had one little tip over in the hairpin at Land Park. There wasn't a single shout and virtually no argy bargy.

In the 35+ 4/5 there were several crashes, a fair amount of yelling "SLOWING!" "HEY!", a lot of weaving and a bad crash in the sprint that sent one rider off with a broken leg.

Quote:Change needed? Talk to Tom!

Actually the new VP can gather input, develop a proposal, gain board/club buy-in on what NCNCA can do and work with Tom to take it further via USAC.

It is a lot easier than that, Tom Simonson in Oakland is not only on the Board of Directors but is legislative chair. He is very receptive to comments and requests. Tom sponsors most of the legislation every year.

Change needed? Talk to Tom!

Mad Axeman wrote:There is a lot to unpack in all of the questions and comments made on this topic.

Rider development takes years. I have said it before, new riders are making decisions in a races that is known as "process" manner versus more experienced riders are executing the same decisions or "automatically".

"Process" is much slower and cumbersome as the athlete has to first actually observe a situation (assuming they have enough attention left to even do so), identify the information coming in (oh, there goes an attack), identify how to respond, then begin to evaluate and decide to respond. That is a lot going on in just a few seconds.

"Automatic", the athlete is trained and practiced to the point that everything above happens instantly, and the athlete has a lot more attention left to identify what is happening to begin with, and decides in what seems instantly.

Well said, Ron.

Think we can all agree that these abilities/skills can't be gained in 10 mass starts. Which is why I'm pushing for 5's to abide by similar Upgrade Guidlines as all other Categories.

If a rider doesn't have the fitness to stay in position up front in 5's, that person will always be fodder in 4's. If riders can't finish in top 10's or podium in 5's, then they will be pack fodder in 4's.

If NCNCA can't change the rules because of USAC. Then petition the USAC to make Guidline changes for 5 Upgrade. lol....we have years of discussion to present a valid package to the Governing body. If a written petition doesn't work then we'll create a special Grant to send ZebraMan to Colorado.

There is a lot to unpack in all of the questions and comments made on this topic.

Rider development takes years. I have said it before, new riders are making decisions in a races that is known as "process" manner versus more experienced riders are executing the same decisions or "automatically".

"Process" is much slower and cumbersome as the athlete has to first actually observe a situation (assuming they have enough attention left to even do so), identify the information coming in (oh, there goes an attack), identify how to respond, then begin to evaluate and decide to respond. That is a lot going on in just a few seconds.

"Automatic", the athlete is trained and practiced to the point that everything above happens instantly, and the athlete has a lot more attention left to identify what is happening to begin with, and decides in what seems instantly.

In the fives there are riders in the field that on a physiological level are not really ready to race. When an athlete is already gassed and riding above a sustainable level, their is not a lot of room in the attention span to make decisions, much less make good ones.

Let's not forget that another problem in the Cat 5 ranks in REALLY BAD bike fits.
I doubt the NCNCA can regulate this, but that doesn't reduce the need.
A bad bike fit can not only make the rider very inefficient, but also affect the handling of the bike with improper weight distribution.

See why there is so much to unpack?

Ron

slowpoke wrote:Was reviewing the USAC guidelines for upgrades. It dawned on me that the least experienced class (5) has the least stringent guidelines. 5-4: Experience in 10 mass start races.

In the 4's crits it seems that we're taking our racing health to Vegas every weekend. There were 3 crashes at Cherry Pie because from what I could sense riders were drilling the inside line before the 90-degree curves and expecting to carry through with that speed and not wash out, so they take out riders to their outside. Upgrading to 4's does not necessarily imply skill in the sense that a specific skill is fundamental to safe racing. There are people who finish in the pack who may be safe racers and are "skilled" (i.e. safe racers with group riding experience) but are unwilling to take chances which may adversely effect the health of the peloton. For example in the 4's there were an number of juniors who raced and the results show that not a one DNF'd. Which tells me that if they have skill to race safely even with elite 4's and they acquired that skill by racing lots. They have more EXPERIENCE than masters and elite 5's and that's why they are safe racers.

I'm not looking for any kind of written test for any Category to upgrade. Would like to see 5's brought up to similar Guidelines for upgrades that the rest of Categories have to abide by. It makes no sense that the least experienced have the least strengent guidelines.

5's are going to ride aggresively for a finish wether there are upgrade points or not. Unless the mentors plan on riding to the front in the last 5 laps of Crit to slow the group down. There are no upgrade points for EBC's, did that change 5's desire to finish strong? Slow down the process for stronger 5's to upgrade and if the others aren't strong enough or incapable of placing to get points then those individuals shouldn't upgrade anymore than a 4-3, 3-2 or 2-1.

Why are 5's held to lower standards for upgrading than the other catagories? 10 mass starts is a poor gadge. An individual can start a race and sit at the back and possibly get dropped at the end and still qualify for upgrade.

DT, the 4-3 portion of guidlines (20 pack finishes with fields over 50) is not my suggestion. That's how the USAC Upgrade Guidlines is written. I belive that was one of the USAC Guidelines Casey did not adhere to.

My suggestion is (NCNCA change 5-4 to 20 points in any 12 month period, but increase the race minimum to 30-35 races with a minimum of 12 top ten finishes.)

The current guidlines for 5-4 simply state "Experience in 10 mass start races. Local Associations may also establish policies where upgrade credit is given for taking a sanctioned rider education clinic."

DT sorry I gave the wrong impression - I agree with you 100%, NCNCA is about racing and that's the main concern of everyone involved w/it, and we should be spending our time talking about these things.

It's just that I'm looking at a task list for the exec board/board for the next 3-6 months and there's a ton of admin BS to do (mostly one-time stuff). The best VP for the next 3-6 mos might be different from the best one for after that. I'm looking forward to month 7!

Casey and others have said many times that requiring riders to pass some kind of test as part of the upgrade could be helpful. The folks working on the website are stepping it up, and AS PROMISED we're proposing to increase the website budget, and this could be part of the plan. Yes I suppose a test might be a break from USAC rules but who is going to have a beef with it? Could make it "optional" but add a carrot so everyone wants to do it.

I also like the idea of figuring out what the problems really are - what it is that some racers don't know or do, even after racing enough to upgrade once or twice, that causes the problems people are noticing? That would tell us some of what should be on this test. That your front brake is the brake that matters, yes...that overlap is bad, yes....that sponsor logos on the socks violate USAC rules of racing...not so much!

-Tad

This is one of the many areas that Jess and I, along a substantial percentage of the current board all agree.

I was at the meeting when Jess presented the proposal and the deliberations were ad nauseum to the point that lap top batteries ran out of power and the web link lost.
There appeared to be no end to the discussions, mostly about what authority the NCNCA legitimately had. I actually stepped in and asked a few specific questions defining clearly what could and what we could not do and got Jess's proposal into the form votable motion keeping his intent intact.

There is and has been consistent encouragement by many on the NCNCA email lists to separate 5s.
It not only makes good common sense for the safety of the riders, but it also makes sense from a financial point for the promoters.

Whatever the reason for resistance to change is, I would like to research what authority the NCNCA has or can acquire to pass it's own legislation on this topic.

Ron

Quote:1. if 5's are practice races, then why do the rules allow the 5's to be combined with 4's, which are not practice races.
2. so 5's aggresiveness for a sprint finish changes and becomes less dangerous by being placed with 4's?

If the 5's are practice races then they should be returned to the title of Public and not mixed with any catagory. Why should we 4's be placed with less skilled racers and be put at greater risk of injury for the sake of a 5's practice?

Mixing 5s with 4s is just plain wrong and should be abolished

and moving from 4 to 3:
Quote:20 pack finishes with fields over 50.
Seriously?! ...with this new rule you basically have to be able to fog a mirror to get your upgrade!

these are exactly the reasons I asked what would/could the VP do to raise the standards in NCNCA. Lorri is delegating upgrade responsibility to this person. I realize the VP can't "go rogue" as someone said. But some thought leadership and getting the board, etc., to agree on, and implement, some higher standards would be nice.

I respectfully disagree with Tad that this is a minor issue compared to compensation, conflicts, and the timing system. Those are all important but a VP who is paid a tiny sum, gets an NCNCA grant to put on their own crit and does it with chip timing vs a camera? so what! None of those things will materially improve safety and racing quality. higher standards will. we have a billion riders in this district. We can and should have a bar that improves safety and race quality.

Oh boy, are you singing to the choir on this one.

http://www.ncncaracing.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1936

You may not know that it was I who spearheaded the (successful)campaign to remove the 35+ 4/5 category from BAR/BAT to try to discourage promoters from the use of that combined category.

Although the Board softened my proposal somewhat prior to the vote at the November meeting, it was definitely a step in the right direction, and I believe we are already seeing fewer 4/5 categories.

It remains a particular mission of mine to eliminate all combinations of 5's with "competitive fields." Thus, I certainly agree that results in races in which 5's are competing should have no upgrade effect based upon results, rather than experience.

To go one step further, I am also dedicated to having a motion passed to require some standardized training for all cat 5's prior to upgrade, whether they intend to race crits or not. "Doing it" is not enough; there are important techniques and skills that must be taught rather than learned by trial and (ouch!!) error.

But I'm not going to start singing my tired refrains again on this thread.

greenjersey wrote:This is not a complete answer but the Category 5 races are essentially practice races that allow gaining experience. By making points a requirement for a 5 to 4 upgrade they will become perhaps more aggressive and therefore more dangerous.

1. if 5's are practice races, then why do the rules allow the 5's to be combined with 4's, which are not practice races.

2. so 5's aggresiveness for a sprint finish changes and becomes less dangerous by being placed with 4's?

If the 5's are practice races then they should be returned to the title of Public and not mixed with any catagory. Why should we 4's be placed with less skilled racers and be put at greater risk of injury for the sake of a 5's practice?

But as long as 5's are going to be catagorized then they should have stricter guidlines along with the other catagories. Agree or disagree?

This is not a complete answer but the Category 5 races are essentially practice races that allow gaining experience. By making points a requirement for a 5 to 4 upgrade they will become perhaps more aggressive and therefore more dangerous.