Racer Z wrote:Not having prizes in CAT5 events should be even more motivation to get out of the 5s. Why stay longer than you have to? Its the easiest upgrade you will ever have and the 4s aren't that much faster - just a little safer.
Some people are saying folks should learn how to win different ways and not be forced to upgrade via mandatory points rules - the place to do that is in the 5's where as you say there should be no incentive to stay there -except to learn different ways to do well in races and ride safely and within the rules in different situations. Possibly some of the road races that need to limit fields should not have a category 5 field - mostly to make sure racers familiar with the rules for racing and getting along with the community, and peripherally to encourage folks to get out of 5's as well - like Berkeley RR is doing.

Not having prizes in CAT5 events should be even more motivation to get out of the 5s. Why stay longer than you have to? Its the easiest upgrade you will ever have and the 4s aren't that much faster - just a little safer.

d.stoler wrote:I wholeheartedly agree that 5's should race by themselves. Keep it as the "entry level" race it was designed to be, and there should be plenty of motivation for new riders to get themselves moved up.
This is especially needed since they changed the rules to further limit fields with cat 5's. The masters categories seem to be a good source of revenue for the promoters, and I'm sure the promoters see the value of getting as many in as possible.
I think that this is why you'll be seeing more Master 35-45+ 3/4 races in the future.

That was exactly the thinking of the USCF Board of Trustees when we imposed the 75 max field limit for fields containing cat.5 riders - sometimes fields must be combined (particularly in areas with few riders), but as much as possible we prefer to see separate cat.5 events. We wanted to move away from large fields in 4/5 events toward separate races for 5's. Cat.5 was intended to be a special entry-level group - hence the smaller field limit and ban on prizes.

Note that the ban on prizes for 5-only events could create new complaints - suppose that the 4/5 event is split into 4 only and 5 only. Now cat.5 riders have their own race, but by rule have no prizes. Some 5 riders might then complain that they entered an event with prizes (4/5) and ended up in an event with no prizes. If we move in the direction of splitting fields this way the race ad should probably mention it, including the prize issue.

I agree with D. Stoler to a point. Obvioulsly there's no real money or prestige in putting on these low grade bike races we participate in. If VP folds that would leave a big hole (at least temporarily). Also, as D. Stoler notes (as does the Velo News article), the officials and volunteers who show up and donate their time are also necessary for us to race. They are all owed regular thanks and appreciation for what they do. That's certain.

At the same time, there needs to be room for improvement, change and constructive criticism. VP is still running races on a 20/25 year old, low budget model which was necessary to stage races in 1975 in Nor. Cal. Times have changed greatly in many ways. There's a large influx of mainly well off master's racers who would be willing to pay I am guessing $40/$50 entry fees IF the event were really managed in a first class way. By that I mean, events nearer to the Bay Area or other Nor Cal urban areas where most of us live, events with a minimum of broken up, dangerous, potholed country roads which are getting worse and worse every year and have no likelihood of being repaved or even repaired any time soon. Maybe for a special event like Copperopolis, we are looking for that experience, but "bridge out" at Snelling, washout at Orosi, potholes at Wards Ferry etc.???

I received in the mail (as you may have) a notice about an amateur stage race in April in Westlake Village (So. Cal.) put on by MESP. I don't know if this will actually be the case, but they promise or will strive to "We will do our best to you feel like a pro for the weekend". Some of the people who contribute to this forum actually seem to think that's a bad goal or object. I and some others think that's the direction race promoting should move in, even in gradual steps. The better managed and staged the events are, the more safe and professional they are or seem, the more athletes will want to race which will make the increased economic costs of staging a first class event more feasible.

It seems that there are those that want to bag on Velo Promo or other promoters, but could you imagine what racing in nor-cal would be like w/out these people?
If Velo Promo wasn't around there would be a gaping hole left! Bob or his races may not be perfect, but I am so glad he and other dedicated people are around. This goes for ALL the nor-cal promoters.
From the promoters to the officials, volunteers, etc., there are a lot of people involved that are making a difference. Are they all in it "for the money" - I think not.
Next time you're at the races, take a minute and look around at all the people involved to pull one of these things off - then maybe tell a couple "thanks for being here!"
There are people at every race that are "giving up" a days riding so that we can - as long as we remember that we will be ok.

As there seems to be a lot of "discontent" stewing out there on race promoters which seems to be possibly the most frequent discussion topic on this forum, may I draw your attention to the latest issue of Velo News in print which has five long feature articles on American race promoters? It seems reasonably fair and balanced, both to how disgruntled many riders feel and about what a thankless task undertaking race promoting can often be.

To me, the most interesting race promoter profile article is about the non-USCF race promoters, particularly CBR in So. Cal. This article begins:

"Promoters suck. This oft-repeated mantra booms from disgruntled competitve cyclists on group rides across the country. Many racers seem to think event promoters are in for the money, They think the people putting on the races don't care about finding challenging courses, keeping entry fees sensible, paying a decent prize list or keeping races safe."

Apparently, according to this article at least, CBR has earned a good reputation about taking rider feedback into account when planning events.

Anyway, if you're interested in this topic in general and don't subscribe to Velo News, this is one issue worth purchasing. It also features a somewhat amusing article comparing how much our own local, legendary Dr. Max Testa of UCD Med Cntr. has helped Levi Lepheimer on the one hand and an amateur masters racer who could be any of us on the other hand.

I wholeheartedly agree that 5's should race by themselves. Keep it as the "entry level" race it was designed to be, and there should be plenty of motivation for new riders to get themselves moved up.
This is especially needed since they changed the rules to further limit fields with cat 5's. The masters categories seem to be a good source of revenue for the promoters, and I'm sure the promoters see the value of getting as many in as possible.
I think that this is why you'll be seeing more Master 35-45+ 3/4 races in the future.

I'm still on the mind set that the 5s should race by themselves. The only time they should ever be combined is when the CAT4 field is not big enough to earn upgrade points in.

Ward's Ferry should always be split into 4s and 5s. Same with the Giro. Combining the 4 and 5s and limiting to 75 riders is just dump. Have 100 in the 4s and 50 in the 5s (At the Giro, not at Ward's Ferry).

Nice, Mr. Phipps won the race and still could have had more fun! More proof that teams really do matter at the 4/5 level, at least for the fun side of it.

We EMC/Vellum sent ours in together and had the desired outcome - the two who showed up race day went in the 2nd field.

However, I'd like to endorse your idea to plan/promote split fields for our huge mass of 4/5s into 5s and 4s or Elites & Masters. On the other hand, not every race field will fill, though history gives us a good idea of the ones that will.
Later, X

casey wrote:
AS VELo Promo has said if you want to increase you chances of riding with your teammates in groups that might be split then all your teammates should send in their entries in one envelope so they get assigned a continues number block that has a better chance of making it into the same group.

Thanks. I guess my problem is that I'm the type of guy who sends in my entry the first day the info is up on the website, and many of my teammates are the kind who call me on the night before a race and say "I think I want to race tomorrow, do you think the field will be full?"

For some events ( like Snelling) there is a limited ability to split fields, since there are only so many groups that can be safely put onto the course at once. The groups that get split depend on which fields fill up first. Last year for example the Cat 4 women's field filled first so it was one of the groups that got a split field while I think the Cat 5 men didn't get a split field since by the time that group filled up there wasn't any more room to add another field.

I think this is the policy for all races so VP doesn't know in advance which groups will get split since it depends on which groups fill up first and how many additional fields can be safely added. AS VELo Promo has said if you want to increase you chances of riding with your teammates in groups that might be split then all your teammates should send in their entries in one envelope so they get assigned a continues number block that has a better chance of making it into the same group.