kcox920 wrote:
The percentages may not be enough to justify multiple small fields, but it does show the women racers are showing up to race.

I am glad that you acknowledge facts/data. Your opinion/theories of men versus women racing criteriums has been disproven as the percentages demonstrate. Licensed women are racing as much as licensed men in criteriums. Anecdotally, I would suggest that the number one reason men AND women do not choose to race criteriums is perceived danger but in no necessary disproportion.

Advocacy of participation at the Early Bird Clinics or other offered alternative clinics and acquiring bike handling skills can help with perceived danger. There are those that just won't try.

BAWC series holds a lot of promise to increase participation for those who may be on the fence or who race criteriums less often. In answer to your previous question I have no original ideas on how to boost participation but I do actively support BAWC and would support other efforts toward that same end.

Thank you for sharing your opinions.

kcox920 wrote:
:-) Well let me make a suggestion for YOU if you want to stay away from the likes of me or any of the other sprinters.

1. Ride in or near the front
2. Try to get away in a breakaway
3. Lead out the last lap in the front
4. If you fail at 1,2,and 3, just sit up when there is 1 lap to go, if you're scared of danger, and/or not a sprinter you don't have a shot at the end anyway. ;-)

-kieran

P.S. Post your name/team and maybe I'll help you do #1 or 2. Or maybe I'll just chase any of your breakaways down and bring the 90 other guys who are more than willing to sit in my huge draft up to you.

I do alright in field sprints and am improving my sprint on the track where I will no doubt see you this year. However, you do have 17 years less age than me so we are not really competing against each other except perhaps in the sprint tourneys. Good luck.

Quote:I guess it goes back to the attrition issue really. For *whatever* reason, there must be a lot of women just quitting the sport after being introduced to it. The RR W4s fields get a lot of support, and I've seen a good number of W4s at criteriums.

Several reasons for declining numbers of higher-category riders have been mentioned here before, among them:

- a number of women don't want to upgrade and are "career cat 4s", just like in the men's field;
- once you upgrade to a cat 3 you face many mixed fields (cat 3/4 and 1/2/3) that are not so desirable (we have more W3 races here than a lot of places in the US, but it's still a factor);
- once you upgrade to cat 2 you're always going to be mixed in with a REALLY strong field (often including more pros than the men's 1/2 field), and people get discouraged being pack fodder -- which I'm sure happens in the men's fields, too, but there are more men coming into the sport for various reasons so people don't notice as much;
- life happens -- work, don't have the training time for the next level, school, kids, etc., just like the men's field.

miketrackman wrote:Percentages are good and great but there still are not enough women racing to justify multiple fields and age groups. Last year there were 785 CAT4 men and a total of about (I didnt bust out the calculator) 500 women. If you are a cat 4 or 5 male over 35 you have to Reg months away from the race if you want to get in.

The percentages may not be enough to justify multiple small fields, but it does show the women racers are showing up to race.

I guess it goes back to the attrition issue really. For *whatever* reason, there must be a lot of women just quitting the sport after being introduced to it. The RR W4s fields get a lot of support, and I've seen a good number of W4s at criteriums.

Does anyone have the numbers on how many new W4s there are per a year? and how many women do not re-up their license the next year? I wouldn't be surprised if comparing that to the attrition rate of the men produces a shocking difference.

If we identify and make headway into the attrition issue, I really believe the womens' numbers would surge within a few years.

It's unfortunate that (for now at least) "miketrackman" is correct, percentages don't make much $$$ when it's raw volume that gets more fields.

-kieran

Percentages are good and great but there still are not enough women racing to justify multiple fields and age groups. Last year there were 785 CAT4 men and a total of about (I didnt bust out the calculator) 500 women. If you are a cat 4 or 5 male over 35 you have to Reg months away from the race if you want to get in.

greenjersey wrote:kcox920 wrote:If you recall I went on at length about the many likely reasons women avoid criterium racing. To sum it all up, it's far more dangerous than road racing so women avoid it.
-kieran

By the way, there are many of us that race criteriums as an athletic endeavor and train/prepare for it as such. For us it is not a testosterone driven equivalent to drinking pitchers of beer. But thank you or sharing the reason you choose to race criteriums, testosterone driven disregard for danger. I will be careful to stay in front of you if we end up in the same field.

:-) Well let me make a suggestion for YOU if you want to stay away from the likes of me or any of the other sprinters.

1. Ride in or near the front
2. Try to get away in a breakaway
3. Lead out the last lap in the front
4. If you fail at 1,2,and 3, just sit up when there is 1 lap to go, if you're scared of danger, and/or not a sprinter you don't have a shot at the end anyway. ;-)

-kieran

P.S. Post your name/team and maybe I'll help you do #1 or 2. Or maybe I'll just chase any of your breakaways down and bring the 90 other guys who are more than willing to sit in my huge draft up to you.

greenjersey wrote:kcox920 wrote:If you recall I went on at length about the many likely reasons women avoid criterium racing. To sum it all up, it's far more dangerous than road racing so women avoid it.
-kieran

Actually Kieran, you gave one and only one THEORY as to why SOME women choose not to compete in criteriums, danger. I have spoken with several men who choose not to race in criteriums and choose only road races. The number one reason for the men I have spoken with was that they consider it dangerous. Statistically there may not be a gap between men and women here. Have you spoken with women who do not choose to race crits? How many?

Concerning your statement that women who choose not race crits due to danger (I have not asked women who choose not to race crits) are more intelligent to men I would ask for some facts, a study, poll or statistics. I do not believe an intelligence gap exists between the sexes. And I do not believe that the men and women who choose to race criteriums are lacking in intelligence, except for those of you that do it as an alternative to beer drinking contests.

Good to see you back here and thanks for the practice at pointing out logical errors. Target rich environment.

Well perhaps you care to offer some theories or suggestions for improvement of your own? Oh wait....you haven't spoken to any female racers about this...yet. I hope you take the few minutes in passing to try it out over the next year or so. I think you'll be surprised.

I spoken to quite a few probably about 30 or 40 over the past few years in passing (racers and non racers). Hardly enough to be 100% sure, but there is a trend. One that the registered numbers of women in criteriums versus road racers agrees with. Along with the number of women in "safer" cycling events(triathlon, centuries, benefit rides, etc).

The number one reason for choosing not to race (at all) I've heard is the safety concern with racing, *especially* racing criteriums. They've often been bolstered in this position with the carnage they've seen at a race or heard of, or seen on youtube.

About a year ago I made a suggestion to reduce the danger or criteriums. That was to make them more of a tempo or points race like the track. That would keep the pace up(dropping many if not most), and reduce the importance of the sprint at the end. Hopefully that takes the steam out of those 100 person field sprints at the end.

(If memory severs I've never seen a crash during a preme sprint... a points race would make the premes more of a race entity)

Maybe this is a good option for women's criteriums as well? I think it's worth a try for both.

-kieran

Ok, here's some facts on crit racing. Looking at percent of racers who did a particular race divided by the licensed racers in our district(per the latest demographics on the NCNCA page)....

Cal Aggie Crit
W1/2/3 8.6%
W4 6.0%
M1/2 9.4
M3 5.9
M4 5.2

Cherry Pie Crit
W1/2/3 18.3%
W4 12.8
M3 12.1 (the others men's fields were full so a percentage can't be calculated--that is true of a few other omitted fields. There is also no stats on how many pros are in the 1/2 numbers so they will potentially skew both M & W numbers depending on how many raced)

Merco Crit
W1/2 35.7%
W3/4 14.9
M3 7.2
M4 6.9

Menlo
W 1/2/3 19.7
W3 22.67
W4 11.0

Land Park
W1/2/3 12.5%
W4 9.6
M1/2 11.1
M3 8.1
M4 7.6

I could go on with a couple more, but I think these numbers clearly show that women racers are showing up to crits in as big a numbers as the men, relative to how many of them that there are.

kcox920 wrote:If you recall I went on at length about the many likely reasons women avoid criterium racing. To sum it all up, it's far more dangerous than road racing so women avoid it.
-kieran

Actually Kieran, you gave one and only one THEORY as to why SOME women choose not to compete in criteriums, danger. I have spoken with several men who choose not to race in criteriums and choose only road races. The number one reason for the men I have spoken with was that they consider it dangerous. Statistically there may not be a gap between men and women here. Have you spoken with women who do not choose to race crits? How many?

By the way, there are many of us that race criteriums as an athletic endeavor and train/prepare for it as such. For us it is not a testosterone driven equivalent to drinking pitchers of beer. But thank you or sharing the reason you choose to race criteriums, testosterone driven disregard for danger. I will be careful to stay in front of you if we end up in the same field.

Concerning your statement that women who choose not race crits due to danger (I have not asked women who choose not to race crits) are more intelligent to men I would ask for some facts, a study, poll or statistics. I do not believe an intelligence gap exists between the sexes. And I do not believe that the men and women who choose to race criteriums are lacking in intelligence, except for those of you that do it as an alternative to beer drinking contests.

Good to see you back here and thanks for the practice at pointing out logical errors. Target rich environment.

casey wrote:Miketrackman - Guess you don't pay much attention to the field sizes in race results. Let's looks at the Snelling results, a race with a history of offering separate women's categories.

Women Cat 4 A group 42 riders
Women Cat 4 B group 42 riders

Women 3 36 riders

Cat 1/2/Pro women 41 riders
Just as a point of comparison at the same race there were.

39 in the Cat 5 B field and 42 in the Cat 5 A ( so more Cat 4 women showed up on race day than men).

92 in the Cat 4 men's race ( so the number of Cat 4 women who showed up was just 8 less than the number of Cat 4 men and there has been at least once at Snelling where more Ct 4 women showed up than Cat 4 men).

92 in the Cat 3 men's race

42 in the 35+ A race and 43 in the 35+ B race

82 in the 35+ 1/2/3 field.

So in short at Snelling the number of Cat 4 women was about the same as the most popular Men's categories, the number of Cat 3 women was very good at 36 and the number of 1/2/Pro women was strong also. And Snelling has been like this for years in terms of the number of women racing there.

You're absolutely right Casey, seems like there is no issue with women showing up to *ROAD* *RACES*. The type of event where the issue lies is with *CRITERIUM* races.

If you recall I went on at length about the many likely reasons women avoid criterium racing. To sum it all up, it's far more dangerous than road racing so women avoid it. Also it seems easier (ie costs less) to offer more fields at a road race as everything is running at the same time anyway.

If y'all care to read it again it's the 3rd message from the bottom here:
http://www.ncncaracing.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1627&postdays=0&postord...

-kieran

Snelling women had a greater percentage of category 3 and 4 riders entered, based on 09/08 demographics.

Women(both fields) Men(includes guess on master fields)
Cat 4 # =84= 30% of 281 Cat 4 # ~161~ 15% of 1098
Cat 3 # =36= 24% of 150 Cat 3 # ~128~ 17% of 736

Seems to me the women ARE supporting women's racing with their feet!

Miketrackman - Guess you don't pay much attention to the field sizes in race results. Let's looks at the Snelling results, a race with a history of offering separate women's categories.

Women Cat 4 A group 42 riders
Women Cat 4 B group 42 riders

Women 3 36 riders

Cat 1/2/Pro women 41 riders
Just as a point of comparison at the same race there were.

39 in the Cat 5 B field and 42 in the Cat 5 A ( so more Cat 4 women showed up on race day than men).

92 in the Cat 4 men's race ( so the number of Cat 4 women who showed up was just 8 less than the number of Cat 4 men and there has been at least once at Snelling where more Ct 4 women showed up than Cat 4 men).

92 in the Cat 3 men's race

42 in the 35+ A race and 43 in the 35+ B race

82 in the 35+ 1/2/3 field.

So in short at Snelling the number of Cat 4 women was about the same as the most popular Men's categories, the number of Cat 3 women was very good at 36 and the number of 1/2/Pro women was strong also. And Snelling has been like this for years in terms of the number of women racing there.

I was reading through the posts and im lost, what are we arguing? I think its something about a lack of womens fields. It seems kind of easy to judge this one. There are not as many women racing as men so we have to combine the fields. If we offered separate cats for the women there would be like 7 people in the 1/2 race, and maybe 10 in a 3 race and probably about the same in the 4 race and the crit wouldnt end until 8pm. It doesnt make sense to the promoter to offer separate fields for the women when they can stick a second masters cat in and make a boatload of money.

greenjersey wrote:Quote "Other women seeing women race with men, and men seeing more women at races has a large positive impact on everyone. It shows other women (and especially young girls that happened to come to watch their father race) that its both possible, and "Hey she's doing it! Why can't I?". It also shows the men that there ARE a lot of female racers, and they should be taken seriously."

Your statement above "It shows" suggest a cause and effect relationship between women racing in men's fields and men realizing that there are a lot of women racers (one will lead to another). This is a non sequitor (it does not follow). I do not know of a single male racer that commented of women racing in a men's field that "wow, there a lot of women racers out there". It is my opinion that male racers determine the number of women racers based on the size of women's field solely.

When I see six women in a women's Cat 4 race versus forty that tells the tale FOR ME. I would also GUESS that promoters judge this the same way.

Women racing in men's fields shows men that there are women willing and allowed to race in men's fields. Any other conclusion is supposition and requires additional "data" for support. You did not provide same. Again, Kieran, it is your opinion, not a fact. It does not follow. But yet you layer on top if that they are "missing out on a great way to help their cause". Again, this is your OPINION, not an established fact nor does it logically follow. If you have empirical evidence or statistics that show where women racing in men's fields leads to either recognition by men of women racer's legitimacy or the furtherance of "the cause" which I presume to be more peer racing opportunities then by all means share from your great store of "data" and "facts".

See, I did not even touch the fallacies of "positive impact on everyone" nor that women racing in men's fields will draw in young women racers. I could do this all day with the posts you have made. ALL DAY. You want more data and facts?

What I am pointing to is that most of what you write is about your observations and your opinion about what those observations mean. Fine. Have at it. But stop cloaking your opinion in the garments of "fact", "data" or "proof". If you would be intellectually honest and admit that it is merely your opinion you are sharing and that you do not sit on a throne of rightness you might be better received. If you are unaware that your input here has been largely marginalized by your approach then you are the court jester. If you are aware but still insist on this approach, then you are much worse than a jester.

You're points are well taken. I like how you pull apart the comment made at trying something new but have omitted the many previous comments on the numbers.

When something isn't working I look for new ways to do it, not continue to complain and whine about how things are. My goal with those remarks is to offer more options. It's called being progressive.

Has there been any serious campaign by women's racers to attempt to flood men's fields? I haven't heard any or found results of any effort.

If you can't see how people can be affected (encouraged/discouraged) by being able to identify with others...not sure any data would convince you otherwise.

Just this weekend, I talked with a few or the E3 racers in Dominguez hills during and mostly after the race, because a number (5-8?) of the P/1/2 women joined the E3 field for a second (or 3rd) race that day. 100% of the people I talked to had positive things to say about it. Of course I could just happen to run into positive people whenever I ask them about matters like this.

Perhaps, you could try to offer some new suggestions of your own, instead of just shooting down things that have yet to be tried.

Try thinking progressive, and offer some suggestions along with criticism. Being a lurker and waiting for the best time to jump out and criticize is without offering suggestions to help the argument at hand IS the court jester to which you refer.

-kieran

justin wrote:kcox920 wrote:Ahh Justin..how I love your high charged emotional responses to my logical arguments! Sometimes I wonder if you have some kind of man crush on me with all the emotion involved there? (LMFAO!!!!) :lol:

Based on the amount of time you spend riding behind me, I'd say it's the other way around. But I do love those massive crank arms you use.

Well, obviously you're just not as competitive as the girls I know.

:-) We've never even been in the same race. If we were I'd never see you because you're always in a break or in the front... Whenever there's a sprint you'd barely see me as I go blasting right by you.... same as at the Port ride...or at the track if you came out to an event.

kcox920 wrote:Ahh Justin..how I love your high charged emotional responses to my logical arguments! Sometimes I wonder if you have some kind of man crush on me with all the emotion involved there? (LMFAO!!!!) :lol:

Based on the amount of time you spend riding behind me, I'd say it's the other way around. But I do love those massive crank arms you use.

kcox920 wrote:I would race just as much if P/1/2/3 were the only options. I race for fun, because racing is fun. Sure winning is a goal, but fun is the primary goal.

Well, obviously you're just not as competitive as the girls I know.

Most of us agree with you Casey, and thank you for your
profound statement on the subject of female racers and
their fields. I do notice when fields are separated (women cat 4
and women cat 3) they tend to be larger than combined. I only
wish the promoters would work consistently and offer the fields
consistently, so women have the opportunity to race with their
peers consistently (like the men).

You are certainly reasonable and supportive to women and that
is why the NCNCA is premier.

Laurie Fenech

Casey,

Thank you for sharing. Your long-standing experience, knowledge and facts are clarion among the noise. Your support of women's racing is unquestioned. There are many reasons that NCNCA is the best region in the country and you are one of those reasons.

Over the years I have done many surveys of new, first year racers, both men and women, and one message has come through loud and clear every time the survey has been conducted.

The best way to encourage the growth of women's racing is to have more Cat 4 only women's races. Women, especially the beginning women racers want to race with their peers in skill level. Beginning women don't want to race with the more experienced Cat 1/2/3 women and they certainly don't want to race with men. Even though NCNCA probably offers more separate Cat 4 women's races than any other region the message has been the same from new women racers every time I have conducted the survey, new women racers want more Cat 4 only races to do and if there were more they would race more and encourage their friends to race.

Another message that has come out loud and clear is that having more separate Cat 3 women's races would go a long way in helping develop the sport for women. Many Cat 4 women feel intimidated by taking the big jump from moving from Cat 4 races to Cat 1/2/3 races. The increasing number of Cat 3 only races for women is encouraging and the more separate Cat 3 women's races we have the larger the ranks of CAt 3 women should get.

Finally remember that everyone isn't the same. Just because you might be happy being pack filler just cursing along in the main field not really playing a role in the race doesn't mean that everyone else is happy to do the same. I think most riders want to feel they are competitive in the group they are racing with and what to have a chance of playing a role in their race by being able to be up front leading a chase or pushing the pace or being in a break.

If you want to see the numbers of women racers increase then the solution is simple in concept, show the women the same respect you expect as an athlete. Give them fields where they can be competitive in their skill and or age group.

Quote "Other women seeing women race with men, and men seeing more women at races has a large positive impact on everyone. It shows other women (and especially young girls that happened to come to watch their father race) that its both possible, and "Hey she's doing it! Why can't I?". It also shows the men that there ARE a lot of female racers, and they should be taken seriously."

Your statement above "It shows" suggest a cause and effect relationship between women racing in men's fields and men realizing that there are a lot of women racers (one will lead to another). This is a non sequitor (it does not follow). I do not know of a single male racer that commented of women racing in a men's field that "wow, there a lot of women racers out there". It is my opinion that male racers determine the number of women racers based on the size of women's field solely.

When I see six women in a women's Cat 4 race versus forty that tells the tale FOR ME. I would also GUESS that promoters judge this the same way.

Women racing in men's fields shows men that there are women willing and allowed to race in men's fields. Any other conclusion is supposition and requires additional "data" for support. You did not provide same. Again, Kieran, it is your opinion, not a fact. It does not follow. But yet you layer on top if that they are "missing out on a great way to help their cause". Again, this is your OPINION, not an established fact nor does it logically follow. If you have empirical evidence or statistics that show where women racing in men's fields leads to either recognition by men of women racer's legitimacy or the furtherance of "the cause" which I presume to be more peer racing opportunities then by all means share from your great store of "data" and "facts".

See, I did not even touch the fallacies of "positive impact on everyone" nor that women racing in men's fields will draw in young women racers. I could do this all day with the posts you have made. ALL DAY. You want more data and facts?

What I am pointing to is that most of what you write is about your observations and your opinion about what those observations mean. Fine. Have at it. But stop cloaking your opinion in the garments of "fact", "data" or "proof". If you would be intellectually honest and admit that it is merely your opinion you are sharing and that you do not sit on a throne of rightness you might be better received. If you are unaware that your input here has been largely marginalized by your approach then you are the court jester. If you are aware but still insist on this approach, then you are much worse than a jester.

greenjersey wrote:kcox920 wrote:
your high charged emotional responses to my logical arguments

-kieran

Kieran,

Please. You are anything but logical. A first year philosophy student could point out non sequitors (logical fallacies) in just about every post you make. When it makes sense to YOU, you cloak yourself with this "I'm logical, you're emotional (or senseless)" cloak that is in itself a logical fallacy. You are spouting your OPINION. Fine. You have a right. But please get off the phreaking soapbox and show some deserved respect to those that have an equal right to express THEIR opinion. You are classless dude.

well I'm sure you can just post and show me where the errors are. I'd like to see that. One of the good things about being an engineer is being able to welcome criticism for the goal of being correct. The sooner errors are pointed out the sooner the errors are gone. Simply making a personal attack...without any itemized data/facts along with your personal attack...pretty much validates what I said above. :-)

Take a little more time and generate a solid argument next time.

You'll notice how I usually quote people for the sake of showing the comment which I'm replying to, or just that part which I'm responding to, so as not to confuse the issue. Perhaps that's just being too methodical though.....

-kieran

kcox920 wrote:
your high charged emotional responses to my logical arguments

-kieran

Kieran,

Please. You are anything but logical. A first year philosophy student could point out non sequitors (logical fallacies) in just about every post you make. When it makes sense to YOU, you cloak yourself with this "I'm logical, you're emotional (or senseless)" cloak that is in itself a logical fallacy. You are spouting your OPINION. Fine. You have a right. But please get off the phreaking soapbox and show some deserved respect to those that have an equal right to express THEIR opinion. You are classless dude.

beth wrote:kieran- let me give it to you straight--
when i race, i race to win-- not to ride wheels in the pack to roll in with the group. sure, "racing" with men is good training for women, but it's not really racing, as i will likely get dusted in the sprint, and the last thirty seconds is the most fun part for me. so, sure, i will race with men to train, but like someone said, not if that is my only race and it isn't a viable option permanently.
personally, i wouldn't pay money for entry fee and take time driving to a race to sit in a men's race (unless, like it was said, it was a second race of the day). in fact, the only reason i can think that i would do that, is that i was looking for a date that night...which i probably wouldn't find anyway, and then go home super depressed i got dropped and didn't have anything to do. i don't really see a point in driving to a race to enter a men's race, when i could just go to your favorite place -- the port -- which is ten minutes from my house for a fast, free ride, and can bullshit while eating burritos afterwords.
sure, i love racing with men at the track, but let's not pretend the track isn't rife with problems for women. i like racing with the men for training- but the tuesday/wednesday night track races and saturday track races aren't really goal races for me. but when talking purely about the sprint events -- match sprints and keirin -- it makes it really hard, as there are just a couple of races a year - AVC and the out of town AVC races -- to compete in... sprint events on the track are a huge pain. racing with the B men, i will probably get dusted saturday in the keirin (please note, YOU raced the Bs last year in these early summer races). also, practicing match sprinting with the men isn't all that helpful. mostly, because the guys i get seeded to in the tournaments are pretty new, so i never feel like i get good match sprinting practice, except a few times a year, at those bigger races. of course, at the track the problem is the small pool of women.

:-( Well I really hope more women would come out to race in their field and especially men's fields. Your feelings are quite valid, but I do think it would do a lot for women's cycling if as many women raced as possible regardless of field selection.

Other women seeing women race with men, and men seeing more women at races has a large positive impact on everyone. It shows other women (and especially young girls that happened to come to watch their father race) that its both possible, and "Hey she's doing it! Why can't I?". It also shows the men that there ARE a lot of female racers, and they should be taken seriously.

That's not to mention the visual effect it has on the mostly male promoters, showing them they are very active in the sport.

A different topic, but similar, is how many black people have asked me about cycling and racing in general at races or while taking a break on a training ride. A number of the younger black kids have asked about it a lot too. Many of which had never seen blacks really into cycling let alone racing. Seeing someone you can more easily identify with doing something positive ALWAYS has positive effects. (Racing in downtown Long Beach, and Dominguez Hills this weekend (technically Compton) was a very good example of the above, feel free to ask more if you like)

Believe me, I'm QUITE aware of the 'minority' situation women are in and it's challenges.

Besides it's also one of the cheapest easiest ways to passively support women's racing as you're already a racer, and it benefits your pack riding skills/fitness.

I really hope you and the other female racers really reconsider your choice to rarely race in men's fields. You actually are missing out on a great way to help your cause.

-kieran

casey wrote:I'll just point out there there are lot of time when the 1/2/Pro field is one of the smallest men's fields of the day and the majority of the time the Pro1/2 field doesn't come close to filling up. If the argument is going to be made that promoters should concentrate on fields that fill up so thay make more money then a logical conclusion is that the 1/2/pro fields often should be dumped not only because they have smaller fields but also often have larger prizelists. So by dropping the Pro/1/2 races the promoters get a double bang for their buck, making room for more paying customers and saving on expensive prizelists.

This is a *very* good point.

justin wrote:Excuse me...

This notion that women should be satisfied racing with the men is so completely asinine I would only expect to read it here.

And how interesting that men are suggesting this. And that those men are either masters racers or cat 3 or below. Hmm... The guys who can count on racing against an extremely focused group of their peers nearly every weekend. Even the P12 men have to deal with a much wider array of abilities in their races-- (not a complaint, they know what they're getting into when they request that upgrade, but it's just so fitting that those who know nothing about racing "over your head" are the ones shrugging it off).

I don't have the big answers for growing women's racing. Apparently Kieran has collected a substantial amount of "data" on the subject. I'm a little curious as to how much data a one could really collect regarding women when one is given to frequent misogynistic slander, but I'm always asking stupid questions.

Ahh Justin..how I love your high charged emotional responses to my logical arguments! Sometimes I wonder if you have some kind of man crush on me with all the emotion involved there? (LMFAO!!!!) :lol:

I would race just as much if P/1/2/3 were the only options. I race for fun, because racing is fun. Sure winning is a goal, but fun is the primary goal.

Yes, I am a 3 on the road and perhaps that will remain for a while. If it gets to the point where I'm clubbing them over the head all the time, then it won't be fun anymore (well at least after a month of so...) and I'd upgrade...but I'm no superstar and I'm fine with that.

It's funny because the women have many more options for racing than men <35 and not junior. I only can do ONE race a day, and in rare event I can do two now since I'm finally a USAC 30y/o it's a P/1/2/3 30+ that is RIGHT BEFORE the E3 race... now if it were right after I'm all for it.

Please believe that I do practice what I preach. Since racing is FUN why wouldn't women or master men want to take advantage of racing as many fields as they can that day? I mean you already drove out to the race anyway! You're already dressed...already warm. Why not? It's fun!

Besides, I have a basic theory about training..."If you're not getting dropped, you're not getting faster". So with all the opportunities for women to race with faster fields...not sure why they wouldn't jump at that. There ARE women's fields offered at a lot of races in the year. Perhaps not all the fields EVERY weekend, but for every time you race with the *faster* men, it just means you're that much more ready to DESTROY your peers when that field is available.

Take advantage.

Wish I could do the Master P/1/2/3 race every time I'm at a crit, but I just get to sit on the side and watch, as I only get one race.

-kieran

justin wrote:

This notion that women should be satisfied racing with the men is so completely asinine I would only expect to read it here.

.

wow

a man who can use both asinine and asshatery in such an eloquent manner

i want to meet you :D

Hats off to the Napa GP -- great category 2/3 was a good mix. The crazy P should be renamed the crazy pedal scaper. Girls, girls, girls!

So without getting soap box like. Categories for all level of men: Yes. Catagories for all levels of women: grouped. A perfect world would see a Cat 4 W, Cat 2/3 and a Cat 1/2/3 Pro. You would likely see women enter mulitple events at that point. Women's 2/3s could then test themselves at a higher level racing against the pro women while also racing against their peers. I mean look at Santa Cruz's W 1/2/3 race -- it was dominated by a pro women's team -- not regional racers or club riders.
But, I realize I'm speaking of a perfect world. Mulitiple women's cat's are not the case nor available for race promoters to do because the money is with men's fields. The 4s, the 5s, then the 4/5 masters and the 1/2/3 masters, then the 1/2 Pro men etc.

So the real problem maybe lies in the ugrading system for women? Perhaps the 1,2s should be picked separately (like the women's 3s) for points etc. This would help ease some of the frustration of not racing with our peers all of the time, but at least for standings purposes -- competing along side them in that regard. My two.5 cents.

But really, loved the napa race category, GREAT IDEA!
C

Excuse me...

This notion that women should be satisfied racing with the men is so completely asinine I would only expect to read it here.

And how interesting that men are suggesting this. And that those men are either masters racers or cat 3 or below. Hmm... The guys who can count on racing against an extremely focused group of their peers nearly every weekend. Even the P12 men have to deal with a much wider array of abilities in their races-- (not a complaint, they know what they're getting into when they request that upgrade, but it's just so fitting that those who know nothing about racing "over your head" are the ones shrugging it off).

I don't have the big answers for growing women's racing. Apparently Kieran has collected a substantial amount of "data" on the subject. I'm a little curious as to how much data a one could really collect regarding women when one is given to frequent misogynistic slander, but I'm always asking stupid questions.

I was thinking about removing the P1/2 field and replacing it with a E2 race next year. yea attendance will probably be low, but its giving the 2s a chance to earn upgrade points.

Everyone that EVER gets to race twice in a day regardless of what category is lucky. No such luck for CAT2s under 35. AND we hardly ever get our own race.

Enough griping, more racing.

several of you have mentioned my name along with Laurie Fenech as being the only women making efforts at promoting women's cycling. this just doesn't sit well with me. there are so many women in the NCNCA who have worked very hard in different ways to provide racing opportunities for women.

Elis is one of those women. She is co-directing the BAWC points series. She provides additional prizes for promoters of women's races. She's been hustling her butt to get sponsorship (product and cash) to help encourage women to race. Along with Elis, Andrea Laue, Katherine Hamilton, Kelly Snow, and Bess Hernandez-Jones have been volunteering their time to promote women's racing through the BAWC.

then there are the team leaders -- too many women for me to mention -- the founders, the leaders, the workers, the foundation behind all the glory. thank you to Sabine and Nicola and Jenn VM and Meredith and Cathy and Dawn and Sarah and Mo and Janelle and Claire, and all the other women who have sacrificed to start women's teams.

yup, we don't live in a perfect world. and I think we're very lucky to have the opportunities we have to race -- here in the NCNCA.

my hat is off to all the women (and a few of the men) who have created opportunity for women racers in the past decade.

Lorri

There is one other alternative on Saturday.
http://www.cccx.org/mtb/2009/index.shtml

Unless you are afraid of a little dirt.

Great for working on your sustained efforts and handling skills.

Where else can you do a two wheeled slide in the sand and pull out of it with a little brap? Or ride a wheelie across the finish line with your teammate?

So are you afraid of a little dirt(he says inquisitively)? Are ya chiggen?

Ron

ZebraMan wrote:
Quote:
Oh well. Next year I'm sure I'll be mixing it all up again. I suppose that since I have a masters-bent, I should probably have done a masters women field instead.

2008 demographics
elite women 123 (121)
master women 35+ 123 (158) 45+ (55) 55+ (9)

elite women 4 (124)
master women 35+ 4 (157) 45+ (72) 55+ (13)

an idea for women master fields
master women 35+ 123
elite w4/master women 35+ 4

or
pro/elite women 12
master women 35+ 12/women 3
elite w4/master women 35+ 4

And juniors can start the race at 7:15......

Thanks Jess, for including women this year.....
Laurie F

kcox920 wrote:Marin_ite wrote:As a Cat 1 woman I am pretty disappointed that there is not a race for me to enter this weekend in Napa.

Well there are categories for YOU to enter, but YOU choose not to. Most all the Pro/Cat 1 women I've trained or raced with have NO PROBLEM keeping up with the men at all.

So you do have options, perhaps not your first choice, but options nonetheless.

IMHO, women should rush into men's categories ESPECIALLY when there are not enough women's fields offered. Those men that have problems racing with women will likely complain to the promoters about offering more women's fields...f.

Can you imagine how upset some P/1/2 men would be if half the field was sold out and 1/2 the racers were women? They'd be super mad about not being able to show up and register that day.

How silly of me not to get down on my knees and be super thankful that my only option at Napa is to grovel at the back of a Pro1/2 men's field and suck wheel, while a male Cat 1 Master 35+ rider has the leisure of racing up to FIVE times.
You are right - that isn't my first choice. My first choice is to race with my peers, or at least my own sex. I usually don't have a problem keeping up with the men, but it can be damned hard since the guys are just naturally stronger. The likelihood of me even being able to place in a pro 1/2 men's race is pretty slim, and I just don't even want to bother to spend the time, money, and effort to do a race I won't even be a factor in. I don't want to race just for the training - I can stay home for that. And I will in this case.

It rarely happens but sometimes cat 1 and 2 riders are excluded from racing, like at Barani RR (unless you wre 30+) or Eric Peterson's annual San Jose Gran Prix at the velodrome. Opt out of Copperopolis and ride with your peers (provided there are at least 6 in each ) in the Junior, Women categories. No Elite 1 or 2 riders allowed, and picked by categories 3, 4, 5, masters. That's April 11th, racing starts at 1pm.

I'll just point out there there are lot of time when the 1/2/Pro field is one of the smallest men's fields of the day and the majority of the time the Pro1/2 field doesn't come close to filling up. If the argument is going to be made that promoters should concentrate on fields that fill up so thay make more money then a logical conclusion is that the 1/2/pro fields often should be dumped not only because they have smaller fields but also often have larger prizelists. So by dropping the Pro/1/2 races the promoters get a double bang for their buck, making room for more paying customers and saving on expensive prizelists.

Elis wrote:Quote:When you're the minority, you have to try a little harder and be a little more creative.

...which in the Masters fields means asking for new combinations, like that 45+ 2/3/4 at Cat's Hill a year ago or 35+3/4 or some other combination, but for women means racing with the men? (I'm combining Jess & Kieran's suggestions, here.)

Actually, Elis, you missed the upshot of my statement. I meant "try a little harder" like promote races or preregister or help defray the costs to the promoter of limited enrollment by helping with sponsorships, or any of the other suggestions that some of us had two years ago when the Cats Hill discussion came up. (These were the suggestions for which Mikey tossed me so mercilessly off his island).

Lorri and Laurie are proactive and investing sweat equity into solving the problem rather discussing the problem -- just as when my opinions about masters field distributions led me to create a race to manifest those choices. That was what I meant by: "When you're in the minority you have to try a little harder and be more creative."

Not many people know that when I first conceived the Napa Gran Prix last year it was in conjunction with a womens' team. Part of the partnership was an agreement to offer THREE WOMENS' FIELDS, although at great financial sacrifice to the charitable income of the race. But that team, not I, backed out of the partnership, and a great opportunity to help solve the issue discussed herein was missed. That would count as "trying a little harder."

In any case, I did try to do something creative at this year's Napa GP to give W2's and W3's a racing opportunity they don't normally have -- to race against their own. I have not meant to encourage W1's to race 3's or W35 3/4's to race 55's, I simply mentioned it as a "creative" alternative. The SOLUTION is to promote or co-promote races -- to do the work and thus have the choice. Napa could have been another Menlo Park; it was a choice made and an opportunity forsaken. Now the women have 2 fewer fields and I have 2 pre-reg'd Cat 3's and very little inclination to repeat that mistake. (And a hauntingly familiar refrain in the NCNCA Forum).

kieran- let me give it to you straight--
when i race, i race to win-- not to ride wheels in the pack to roll in with the group. sure, "racing" with men is good training for women, but it's not really racing, as i will likely get dusted in the sprint, and the last thirty seconds is the most fun part for me. so, sure, i will race with men to train, but like someone said, not if that is my only race and it isn't a viable option permanently.
personally, i wouldn't pay money for entry fee and take time driving to a race to sit in a men's race (unless, like it was said, it was a second race of the day). in fact, the only reason i can think that i would do that, is that i was looking for a date that night...which i probably wouldn't find anyway, and then go home super depressed i got dropped and didn't have anything to do. i don't really see a point in driving to a race to enter a men's race, when i could just go to your favorite place -- the port -- which is ten minutes from my house for a fast, free ride, and can bullshit while eating burritos afterwords.
sure, i love racing with men at the track, but let's not pretend the track isn't rife with problems for women. i like racing with the men for training- but the tuesday/wednesday night track races and saturday track races aren't really goal races for me. but when talking purely about the sprint events -- match sprints and keirin -- it makes it really hard, as there are just a couple of races a year - AVC and the out of town AVC races -- to compete in... sprint events on the track are a huge pain. racing with the B men, i will probably get dusted saturday in the keirin (please note, YOU raced the Bs last year in these early summer races). also, practicing match sprinting with the men isn't all that helpful. mostly, because the guys i get seeded to in the tournaments are pretty new, so i never feel like i get good match sprinting practice, except a few times a year, at those bigger races. of course, at the track the problem is the small pool of women.
i don't know how i got on that topic, but, i really don't even know what it is that this thread is about anymore.
wah, wah, glass ceiling. i'm so bored. i'm going to get a muffin.

From my perspective, racing against peers is extremely important from both a competitive and a social perspective. I did see women joining us in the Elite 3 race at Hanford as their second race. They did well and they were smooth wheels to follow. However, I can't imagine that it would be attractive to women racers to compete in a men's category as their goal or only race on race day. I typically race twice at crits and would not want to race in tougher categories than appropriate/possible for my age (47) and category (3) most or every time. I am thankful when promoters are creative with fields that allow me a more competitive chance.

So, it leads me to this:

Is this a "Build it and they will come." type of thing? Will more women race or the same women race more if there are additional/better opportunities at the races? Do I REALLY need five opportunities to race at Napa (this is rhetorical and not a dig Jess - you do a fine job).

Creativity and genius will seek a both/and solution. I do not believe the reality is solely either/or standpoints. This is limited thinking. And some appear just to enjoy stirring the pot and arguing for argument's sake.

I support women's cycling. Elis knows this. Many of us are spoiled with our racing opportunities. I will say that it is the responsibility of the MAJORITY to insure that we take care of the minority. THAT is democracy. THAT is compassion. THAT is civilized. Let's act more like big brothers. Sis, we got your back.

Some people here need to understand that simply opposing others and taking strong, opinionated stances and passing them as established fact only marginalizes their influence. Dialog, not monologue, please?

Quote:When you're the minority, you have to try a little harder and be a little more creative.

...which in the Masters fields means asking for new combinations, like that 45+ 2/3/4 at Cat's Hill a year ago or 35+3/4 or some other combination, but for women means racing with the men? (I'm combining Jess & Kieran's suggestions, here.)

Don't we have so many different Masters fields because (some) men over 35 don't like racing against men under 35 in their same categories, claiming that those aren't their peers and they need to be able to race against their peers for a race to be fun (and safe)?

As a woman who has raced against the cat 1,2, 3 cat 4 men during my racing "career" (just for training, because there's no way I'm winning anything in that field), those are NOT my peers. They are nice guys, but definitely not my peer group. And while it's good training periodically, it's just not as much fun as racing with my real peers.

It'd be nice to have more women take advantage of the second race opportunity a men's field offers, just like the majority of men are able to, but that is as far as I would take that argument.

Quote:IMHO, women should rush into men's categories ESPECIALLY when there are not enough women's fields offered. Those men that have problems racing with women will likely complain to the promoters about offering more women's fields....

Well, you voted me off that same island long ago, Mikey; which frees me to agree with KCox with Her-munity.

I think KCox has the right idea, but the wrong field. The W35+3/4's should take over the 55+ category. I know, they'd have to bang elbows with Caldwell, but he's all bark.

I'll agree with these guys on another basic point: When you're the minority, you have to try a little harder and be a little more creative. It seems to me that Lorri and Laurie are the only women I see out there really making the opp's happen for the women.

I know -- off your little island. Okay, okay.

perhaps its time to eliminate the P 1/2 field all together. reason is that they simply wait till the last day to sign up, as a promoter, that puts my club in a spot, did we order enough police coverage, porta-potties, get enough volunteers.

those who do show up, are they really pros or just cat 1 men?

mhernandez wrote:i vote kcox920 off the island

surely that's not because I failed to mention you as one of the best racers in the area right? :lol:

...lol....

i vote kcox920 off the island

Marin_ite wrote:As a Cat 1 woman I am pretty disappointed that there is not a race for me to enter this weekend in Napa.

Well there are categories for YOU to enter, but YOU choose not to. Most all the Pro/Cat 1 women I've trained or raced with have NO PROBLEM keeping up with the men at all.

The only true difference I've seen with the Pro/1 women versus Pro/1/2/3 men is they really come up short when a sprint starts. Other than that they keep up just fine, and I've seen some get away in breakaways too.

So you do have options, perhaps not your first choice, but options nonetheless.

IMHO, women should rush into men's categories ESPECIALLY when there are not enough women's fields offered. Those men that have problems racing with women will likely complain to the promoters about offering more women's fields....

Can you imagine how upset some P/1/2 men would be if half the field was sold out and 1/2 the racers were women? They'd be super mad about not being able to show up and register that day.

GFMeilahn wrote:Kieran,
A better offer is Encino velodrome's category racing the same day. It offers a separate women's field and a separate junior's field. And the monthly L.O.T.S (Ladies on the track session) is the same day, and always well attended.

Women enjoy racing against their peers. The Davis Junior Criterium had 11 female riders aged 15-18 compared to State Championships 6 riders, neither huge money makers but both equally important.

George Meilahn
Dad of 16 year old female racer

Yup, your right here, forgot about Encino's Omnium this weekend. That is a fun track. Very few seem to be willing to travel for track races though...

GFMeilahn wrote:Kieran,

Odd that you should mention San Jose's velodrome racing as a viable alternative for the women. It is A, B, C seeding which will mean the women WILL BE racing against men! A better offer is Encino velodrome's category racing the same day. It offers a separate women's field and a separate junior's field. And the monthly L.O.T.S (Ladies on the track session) is the same day, and always well attended.

Women enjoy racing against their peers. The Davis Junior Criterium had 11 female riders aged 15-18 compared to State Championships 6 riders, neither huge money makers but both equally important.

George Meilahn
Dad of 16 year old female racer

Well the C's field is a mix of a lot of folks. Just like with the shortage of female road racers, were there more track racers I'm sure more categories at the track would unfold.

I do believe Hellyer to be a viable alternative for women racers. The track is safer in many ways than racing a criterium, and offers more opportunity to improve skill wise and watch/learn from more experienced racers.

The best racers in this area are avid track racers.
Daniel Holloway
Shelly Olds,
Ben Jaque-Maynes

2008 Pro-Criterium Champion: Rahsaan Bahati

just the first few that come to mind...

Just like many before them, and many that will follow. Anyone with aspirations of becoming great is wise to spend time at the track.

casey wrote:You do realize Kieran that the exact same thing can be said about men. There are thousands of non competitive cycling events that have way more participants, men and women, than the largest race in this country. Non competitive cycling events attract way more cyclists than competitive events stop the presses.

Then again that isn't really true though. There are thousands of people who do events like centuries, double centuries and triple centuries, who ride them as competitive events ( yes they know their time and place at the end of the ride) yet they don't have any interest in road racing. Wonder why these people who consider themselves competitive cyclists, both men and women, avoid road racing? It isn't because they shy away from competition or a lot of long training miles on the bicycle. I wonder what other factors come int play that keeps people away.

Yes the same numbers thing can be said about men, EXCEPT that men's racing fields usually fill up or at least have decent attendance. If that were not the case I'd 100% agree that it would be the same.

Quote:(I wonder why Napa wasn't included in the series?!?)

Napa didn't ask to be part of the Series...

Bummer about the W3's. I think when I set the date for the Gran Prix, the Altamont TTT didn't yet exist. I know that when my fields were set and pre-reg opened, their flyer was not yet published, so I didn't know about the series or their cat's. (I wonder why Napa wasn't included in the series?!?) I certainly didn't know about Cinderella.

You know, some people, like Larry Nolan, are racing BOTH. TTT in the a.m., then Napa in the p.m. Yeh, baby.

Oh well. Next year I'm sure I'll be mixing it all up again. I suppose that since I have a masters-bent, I should probably have done a masters women field instead. I guess the promoters of technical races or those with hills that are more than bumpy, or those that run on the same days as centuries or TTT's, or those on rainy days or cold days or negative ion days, proceed at their own risk ...

And by the way, Cody Graf of Wells Fargo Racing ... you are the BOMB!!! Thanks for pre-reg'ing, gal! You're going to leave Napa with a ton of schwag and Zebra Love!!!