Do gravel race participants care about "lining up with the pros"?

[spoonrobot]

Originally Posted by rice rocket

If you've attended any cycling events, you'd know that the men outnumber the women 10:1, if not worse.

You could do separate days, but you would have to scale for two separate events that differ in size by an order of magnitude. The women's event would seem like a pity party.

That's part of why I don't think it's the answer or even a good option.

At the same time, you have to show people - women racers, sponsors, media, etc. - something before they commit fully. Unbound started with 34 men and had 100x attendance in 13 years with women making up 20% of the total attendance then.

If for our hypothetical 2024 split edition, the women's field is "full" at 60 and done on a separate day I think that's both something that can be achieved at this time, and reasonable as a starting point for this specific option. Smaller than the men's, but it doesn't have to be diminished or a pity party.

But as I said earlier, I think a rules based solution combined with staggered starts for events where it makes sense - are the best answer with the current field sizes and cultural norms.

For the sample of national gravel events where I reviewed the "main event" the estimated ratio of men/women was around 5.5:1 and for the shorter distances offered this shrinks to 3:1.

[spoonrobot]

Originally Posted by rice rocket

Ironman can fill a full field of mens and womens. No way that happens in gravel, or any cycling event for that matter.

It may surprise you how even the Ironman World Championship was lopsided.

Although there are a multitude of factors not necessarily applicable to gravel racing, the outcome is specific and relevant to our discussion.

Prior to the first split year for Ironman WCs in 2022 the Women's field was around 27-30% of the total field.

2022 the women's field was able to be almost doubled ~730 to ~1320 and then in 2023 almost doubled again to ~2140.

This is an interesting article addressing many of the other factors behind this increase: https://www.triathlete.com/culture/n...-championship/

The point IMO is that women can respond to similar incentives and while fields may be small to begin, it's possible there is another groundswell possible with a few years of work.

[KonaSS]

This discussion has understandingly focused on Unbound, and it's an outlier due to the length of the race. It makes separating race starts by significant time or even double days more difficult. There may not be a great answer for how to create space for the women to have their own race because of this.

But the double day format could have legs. I like events where I am the participant on day 1, and the spectator for the pros on day 2. You get to watch the pros do what you just did, and marvel at how much better they are.

This is the format for most of the Epic Ride series, like the Whiskey 50. Pros do a Friday night fat tire crit that brings everyone out to packet pickup and the Expo. On Saturday, the amateurs take the course and then have food and music at the Expo area afterwards. On Sunday, Pros take the course, it again brings people out to the Expo where they can mill about and then watch the pros finish 3-4 hours later.

Clearly wouldn't have a fat tire crit, and a race on trails may be easier to secure over a weekend. The final hurdle is the length/time of the race. But I think this could be a winning formula.

[gravelreformist]

The cost of running an event over two days is not purely financial, but the fact that you then need a full suite of volunteers for two days rather than one. Most events would probably struggle to attract that kind of assistance.

There are two plausible solutions I can see.

One, accept that this is not a problem specific to the women's field. Anyone who has ever raced a mass-start event who is behind the front of the pro men is going to be mixing in with other categories. It's just the nature of the sport. "Pro cyclist" is barely a job description in the USA, even for the top men. The reality is that as a domestic pro you are only a step above the top amateurs ("salaries" for many of the now-defunct NCL were on the order of ~$250/month). Racing with the amateurs is how your career is funded. I was one of those pros once who quickly realized I had much better job prospects elsewhere.

Two, the best you could hope for is a staggered start. Sure, 10 minutes isn't enough, but start the Pro women 10 minutes behind the Pro men and then start the amateurs an hour later. Yes, some of the pro women will still be caught in a long enough race, but not the ones who are competing for a podium. This seems like the most obvious solution...

[Alistair]

Even if a two-day is feasible for pro women, when do you run the amateur women? My wife wouldn’t race Sunday (if I race Sat) - that makes travel too complicated and/or requires another vacation day. I’d guess a fair chunk of the amateur women fall in that bucket (want to ride with male friends).

[rice rocket]

Originally Posted by spoonrobot

The point IMO is that women can respond to similar incentives and while fields may be small to begin, it's possible there is another groundswell possible with a few years of work.

You're comparing the top event where they can skim off the top X% of participants in the sport, to A gravel race.

You can't achieve parity in open registration, end of story. There are simply not enough women interested in gravel racing vs men. This is not a case of build it and they will come, you need the inverse and cycling is not an inclusive sport.

[AngryScientist]

Cancel gravel racing.

Fondo format for all.

Let the pros charge for autographs and selfies if they need cash.

[saab2000]

I just rode Barry Roubaix in Hastings, MI. It’s not a race that attracts too many “pro” racers I don’t think but it fills up registration at 3500 riders or something huge like that. The fastest riders are certainly high level and strong.

The race goes off in waves. Riders self-seed themselves into their wave at registration and then they go off in 3 minute intervals.

I don’t know how this ultimately works with the fastest riders but it wouldn’t be too hard to have separate men’s and women’s waves at the start for those who want to contend for a win. I was seeded in a mid-pack wave and there were plenty of women and nobody cared about gender that far back. It was more of a spirited ride than a race for anyone not in the first wave or two.

[.RJ]

Originally Posted by spoonrobot

It says a lot about the sport that events with 2-4000+ attendees at $200+ each cannot support 2 race days. Especially when they are held on open roads with often minimal public service support and largely volunteer labor force.

They still have police, permits, insurance, EMT, officials (if sanctioned) to pay for. I think the list of events that doesnt turn unprofitable by doubling those costs is very, very short.

The Lifetime series is giving women their own start on the same day, and it seems like thats working well.

[spoonrobot]

Originally Posted by rice rocket

You're comparing the top event where they can skim off the top X% of participants in the sport, to A gravel race.

You can't achieve parity in open registration, end of story. There are simply not enough women interested in gravel racing vs men. This is not a case of build it and they will come, you need the inverse and cycling is not an inclusive sport.

Does Triathlon as a whole have a closer gender ratio than gravel cycling? Does running? Does NICA MTB? Why?

Gravel racing is the perfect example of "build it and they will come" a small handful of events attended by a few dozen men spawned an entire nationwide craze where tens of thousands of people attend dozens of events. Gravel is the inclusive part of cycling. Racing by nature is exclusive but can be made to accommodate larger fields for disparate groups.

This is not a problem that requires a solution immediately today. The future always has potential.

Originally Posted by .RJ

They still have police, permits, insurance, EMT, officials (if sanctioned) to pay for. I think the list of events that doesnt turn unprofitable by doubling those costs is very, very short.

The Lifetime series is giving women their own start on the same day, and it seems like thats working well.

It's not clear (or probable) the costs would double. The potential Women's Pro event would be shorter and require less of everything. It's entirely possible the cost would be a relatively small fraction of the main event. Field of 60-100 pro women could be done in at most 70% of the time it took the entire field last year.

DFL for 2023 Unbound was 21 hours - with a specific Pro Women field the structure can be with a time cut/broom wagon of whatever time is appropriate.

People can make all the negative or positive assumptions they want. Reality has a way of clearing the table anyway. This is a problem that needs to be iterated, as each event has different requirements and possible solutions that may not work for another event. As I've said, different start time and/or rules based structure are the best idea right now.

[C40_guy]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

the amateurs had a delayed start time from the pros.

Any delayed start time would be more than outweighed by my delayed finishing time.

[zap]

I have no interest in lining up with pros at races.....gravel, road, mtb, etc. I was never that fast and my off road skills....pffff.

E-bikers......no freaking way.

Women. I watched highlights of a few "big" gravel races and saw the "top" women being paced by men. One race, the lady who finished second missed the "break" and rode solo for a bit.

The only solution I can think of....get caught being paced by men for a certain period of time......dq and banned from the next race.

[benb]

The idea of volunteer shortages being the blocker for a 2-day format is really icky, even compared to Ironman.

Lifetime, etc.. is 100% about making money for themselves and don't really care about where they leave cycling when they inevitably dump cycling for whatever is what they perceive as the new fitness fad.

Volunteers should not be in the picture at these prices and when they are paying Pros to race their whole series. The whole thing is just marketing for their $300+/month gyms and now their $4000-6000/month apartments. (Maybe you can get a studio in some locations for $3000/month)

[EB]

Originally Posted by AngryScientist

Cancel gravel racing.

Fondo format for all.

Let the pros charge for autographs and selfies if they need cash.

Hear hear.

Once we start accommodating these pros they will want to pave over the gravel and allow support vehicles and then where will we be.

[benb]

LOL.. already happened for me, the best gravel areas I used to ride in VT when I'd go up there 6-8 years ago got paved over and my interest has steadily waned.