NACS sanctioning body

[Lewis Moon]

What would you think of another sanctioning body governing "grass roots" cycling races in the US?

I've hated USAC for a while so I say kill it with fire.

Velo article on NACS (http://velonews.competitor.com/2015/11/news/race-to-the-bottom-usac-faces-new-challenger_389548)

[MattTuck]

Allow me to play a dictator for a few minutes. It seems, since a big part of cycling performance is genetic and/or luck of the mitochondrial draw, that the key to good results on the international stage is to find the best talent. We should have a good program for kids. Start as many of them racing young, and see who's fastest. In terms of 'the funnel', you want as many people as you can in the early stages of their lives to be out on bikes loving it and seeing who is fastest so you can develop that talent. Basically, maximize the number going into the funnel.

It seems that old guys in spandex racing on the weekends has very little to do with the goal of developing the world's best riders.

To me, the question isn't whether NACS or any other organization should take over amateur sanctioning (especially for promoters just trying to put on a fun event for adults) it's why USAC wouldn't be encouraging it so they can focus on their real goals.

It makes no sense, other than the perpetuation of a monopoly, why USAC should be dealing with amateur races for adults.

[djg21]

What would you think of another sanctioning body governing "grass roots" cycling races in the US?

I've hated USAC for a while so I say kill it with fire.

Velo article on NACS (http://velonews.competitor.com/2015/11/news/race-to-the-bottom-usac-faces-new-challenger_389548)

I think USCycling should welcome another body to focus solely on grass-roots, recreational & masters racing so USCycling can focus its efforts on developing a national team and on promoting a relatively small number of regional or national elite-level events. However, I can't imagine USCycling would be happy about losing the licensing fees it currently collects from recreational riders, with which it likely subsidizes many of its other initiatives.

[christian]

Yeah, old guy racing pays for the rest.

[batman1425]

^^^ This. Junior, U23, Pan Am teams, and even the national championship races get paid for by the category and masters racers license fees.

It would be great if USA cycling could focus solely on development of young talent and transition into Elite racing, but that is an expensive function. It takes a lot of licenses to underwrite it.

[MattTuck]

^^^ This. Junior, U23, Pan Am teams, and even the national championship races get paid for by the category and masters racers license fees.

It would be great if USA cycling could focus solely on development of young talent and transition into Elite racing, but that is an expensive function. It takes a lot of licenses to underwrite it.

I'm not sure. That article says this.

From 2008 to 2014, USA Cycling痴 revenue increased nearly 40 percent, to $14,126,916

That really is NOT a lot of money. They need to get some under-writers or sponsors. And, isn't this what we're talking about? People are voting with their feet, choosing not to race at USAC events. So, there is a real possibility that trend will continue whether or not NACS does anything.

Time for USAC to see if they need to change their business model.

[bcroslin]

How is it done in Europe?

[batman1425]

I agree it isn't a lot of money, which is why I think the development programs they have are (in comparison to other nations) small, poorly funded, and limited in athlete production.

I don't think underwriters and sponsors are the fix either. The amount needed to effectively find and develop talent combined with the long time to ROI (it will be years before you know if the money is making any difference) and limited advertising returns for sponsors makes it a big risk for investors. The Big money sponsors want to see that jersey in front of a camera at every race, plastered on banners, etc which is a lot easier at the pro level, and even there they struggle. How many people in the US follow domestic racing? How many people follow junior level racing? How many eyes are going to see those sponsor logos for the $$$$ that is needed. Its a really hard sell.

The USA cycling model is broken. They can't generate enough money to support development (which is really what their job is as the national governing body and olympic representative) in the way it needs to be by selling licenses and they are on the verge of having those legs cut out from under them too. They need to retool. Fast.




I'm not sure. That article says this.



That really is NOT a lot of money. They need to get some under-writers or sponsors. And, isn't this what we're talking about? People are voting with their feet, choosing not to race at USAC events. So, there is a real possibility that trend will continue whether or not NACS does anything.

Time for USAC to see if they need to change their business model.

[William]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obAAf37gpsw



:D

[shovelhd]

USAC's title sponsor is Volkswagen.

USAC has always been the US arm of the UCI, with all the glory and the garbage that goes along with it. We all feel good when our Juniors succeed at the world level, like our kids did this year in Europe (I bet you didn't hear much about that). The thing is, sponsors aren't knocking their door down. International (Elite, U23, Junior) racing is run on the backs of grassroots racing, and grassroots racing has not been USAC's priority. It has always been viewed as a cash cow to fund the elite. This has resulted in rapidly declining field sizes, long time road and criterium races going away, and an unhappy and disenfranchised membership. Meanwhile, USAC is trying desperately to reach into the gran fondo/gravel/endurance market where there is no sanctioning body, and the races don't seem to want one.

NACS was formed to focus on the grassroots racer. They offer much lower insurance costs and licensing programs. They are going right after the USAC Local Associations (LA), trying to get them to steer promoters their way with the promise of lower costs and larger fields, by offering a much larger percentage subsidy for the LA. They have no elite program, and are trying to leverage the USAC points structure through the LA's. I know most of the people behind it. They are all good people, some of them friends.

The problem is that Derek Bouchard-Hall, the new USAC president, has exactly the same priorities. He has been very vocal about the need for USAC to spend a lot more of their dollars on grassroots racing. He is a respected ex-pro who has been outspoken about cleaning up the sport and rebuilding it from the ground up. Many USAC members that I speak with are 100% behind him, and want to give him a chance first. He's already fired shots across the bow. One of the promises of NACS is that a promoter does not need a Race Director's license. DBH reacts by giving away one free RD license to every licensed club.

The timing for NACS could not be worse. The two biggest obstacles will be to convince promoters to permit with them, and for riders to buy a second license. NACS has a good chance of success if they take the long view. The next six months will be telling.

[Tandem Rider]

The number of new racers has been dwindling for a few years now. I don't know how much of that is a "normal" ebb and flow, and how much is due to the ineptness of of USAC. The real challenge is going to be trying to reverse the current slide, I'm not sure if USAC has the attention span needed to do more than simply squash upstarts like NACS, history says they don't.

That being said, there are some new faces (not just Derek) rising to the top echelon at USAC.

I'm not convinced that for most racers (juniors and college students are not most racers), the cost of another license is a problem. If I face a full season, the cost is several thousand, $75 barely even registers. USAC has not made it easy for the largest group of racers out there to get more of their friends to join in.

[Lewis Moon]

USAC's title sponsor is Volkswagen.

USAC has always been the US arm of the UCI, with all the glory and the garbage that goes along with it. We all feel good when our Juniors succeed at the world level, like our kids did this year in Europe (I bet you didn't hear much about that). The thing is, sponsors aren't knocking their door down. International (Elite, U23, Junior) racing is run on the backs of grassroots racing, and grassroots racing has not been USAC's priority. It has always been viewed as a cash cow to fund the elite. This has resulted in rapidly declining field sizes, long time road and criterium races going away, and an unhappy and disenfranchised membership. Meanwhile, USAC is trying desperately to reach into the gran fondo/gravel/endurance market where there is no sanctioning body, and the races don't seem to want one.

NACS was formed to focus on the grassroots racer. They offer much lower insurance costs and licensing programs. They are going right after the USAC Local Associations (LA), trying to get them to steer promoters their way with the promise of lower costs and larger fields, by offering a much larger percentage subsidy for the LA. They have no elite program, and are trying to leverage the USAC points structure through the LA's. I know most of the people behind it. They are all good people, some of them friends.

The problem is that Derek Bouchard-Hall, the new USAC president, has exactly the same priorities. He has been very vocal about the need for USAC to spend a lot more of their dollars on grassroots racing. He is a respected ex-pro who has been outspoken about cleaning up the sport and rebuilding it from the ground up. Many USAC members that I speak with are 100% behind him, and want to give him a chance first. He's already fired shots across the bow. One of the promises of NACS is that a promoter does not need a Race Director's license. DBH reacts by giving away one free RD license to every licensed club.

The timing for NACS could not be worse. The two biggest obstacles will be to convince promoters to permit with them, and for riders to buy a second license. NACS has a good chance of success if they take the long view. The next six months will be telling.

It's incredibly hard to change an ingrown, incestual organization/institution; just ask Cookson....hell, just ask Barack Obama (but I digress). Over the last decade or so, USAC has consistently made it harder for folks to get their first taste of the sport. They've jacked one day license fees and I haven't seen many "citizen's" categories for years. Ask any drug dealer: If you want folks to try something, you have to make it easy and cheap (if not free). USAC has focused so hard on the elite end of racing that organized bike racing in general in the US has almost become an elitist cult. Any "newbie" who wants to just see what real racing is like is thrown into the deep end of the pool and charged pretty dearly for the experience. Yes, it's only Cat 5, but by the time someone has taken out a cat 5 license, they're pretty dedicated to the sport. (disclosure: I'm a 55+ masters and have been racing since 1975. Not any good, but not a newbie)
In ecology, if an organism abandons a niche, another will fill it. USAC has abandoned the "fun" end of the sport and they're getting called on it. I doubt they'll do anything substantive to address this anytime soon.

[Mikej]

the term "grass roots" and "sanctioning body" or license don't belong together.

[nm87710]

the term "grass roots" and "sanctioning body" or license don't belong together.

+1

[CunegoFan]

It's incredibly hard to change an ingrown, incestual organization/institution; just ask Cookson....hell, just ask Barack Obama (but I digress). Over the last decade or so, USAC has consistently made it harder for folks to get their first taste of the sport. They've jacked one day license fees and I haven't seen many "citizen's" categories for years. Ask any drug dealer: If you want folks to try something, you have to make it easy and cheap (if not free). USAC has focused so hard on the elite end of racing that organized bike racing in general in the US has almost become an elitist cult. Any "newbie" who wants to just see what real racing is like is thrown into the deep end of the pool and charged pretty dearly for the experience. Yes, it's only Cat 5, but by the time someone has taken out a cat 5 license, they're pretty dedicated to the sport. (disclosure: I'm a 55+ masters and have been racing since 1975. Not any good, but not a newbie)
In ecology, if an organism abandons a niche, another will fill it. USAC has abandoned the "fun" end of the sport and they're getting called on it. I doubt they'll do anything substantive to address this anytime soon.

Here is a crazy idea.

Traditional bike racing should be killed off except for a few premium pro events. It is an incredibly poor way to introduce riders to racing. Imagine if hobby joggers were told they need to run a sub twenty minute pace to do a 5K and they will be pulled from the race if are too slow. How many would persist until they could finish one and move on to 10Ks and marathons? What about those who will never be capable of a sub 20?

Running and triathlon and cycling are participatory sports. Running and tri embrace that. Cycling does not. Cycling should move to a categorized gran fondo model, probably one with age groups. Perhaps have a citizens class that is not elible for prizes to encourage riders to buy licenses.

Lots of running promoters make a profit. They fight over weekend dates and courses. How many bike racing promoters make anything for their efforts? If the promoters cannot make money then you cannot expect the sport to be healthy.

[Lewis Moon]

+100

Neither do the terms "masters" and "bike racer".

I know it's become pretty fashionable across the hall to diss masters racers, but come on, really? I'll take that as tongue in cheek.

If it wasn't an offhand joke, what do you mean by that remark?

[MattTuck]

Here is a crazy idea.

Traditional bike racing should be killed off except for a few premium pro events. It is an incredibly poor way to introduce riders to racing. Imagine if hobby joggers were told they need to run a sub twenty minute pace to do a 5K and they will be pulled from the race if are too slow. How many would persist until they could finish one and move on to 10Ks and marathons? What about those who will never be capable of a sub 20?

Running and triathlon and cycling are participatory sports. Running and tri embrace that. Cycling does not. Cycling should move to a categorized gran fondo model, probably one with age groups. Perhaps have a citizens class that is not elible for prizes to encourage riders to buy licenses.

Lots of running promoters make a profit. They fight over weekend dates and courses. How many bike racing promoters make anything for their efforts? If the promoters cannot make money then you cannot expect the sport to be healthy.

Yep. Disagree about the gran fondo model though.

I agree totally with the rest. I think there is a big market for the 5K equivalent in cycling. I have had some conversations about the idea, and I think with the right team working on it, you could make it into a huge new category of events.

15-20 milers should be the norm. Far enough that it is a meaningful distance, short enough that you can do it after work, and even a fat guy/girl who puts in a few months of training can finish it. Make it fun and accessible -- the money will follow.

The idea should be getting as many people as possible to experience some casual form of bike racing. As Lewis said, the current bar is so high, even for cat 5, that there is really not an easy entry into scene.

[benb]

I'm all for this the whole thing stinks right now.. Elites & their orgs make the money they should be doing the funding for themselves & the drug testing to keep them honest, us weekend warriors should not be footing the bill for elite drug testing and high salaries for bureaucrats at USAC.

I like the idea of more Gran Fondo type stuff too I guess but you gotta have both.. even a Cat 5 race has way more excitement when you're at the sharp end of the race than any Gran Fondo or "participation focused" event has. And the problem with any race that doesn't pull people is it's harder to get organized of course. Office park crits don't have the romance but they work for the folks who are there to actually race.

[EDS]

Here is a crazy idea.

Traditional bike racing should be killed off except for a few premium pro events. It is an incredibly poor way to introduce riders to racing. Imagine if hobby joggers were told they need to run a sub twenty minute pace to do a 5K and they will be pulled from the race if are too slow. How many would persist until they could finish one and move on to 10Ks and marathons? What about those who will never be capable of a sub 20?

Running and triathlon and cycling are participatory sports. Running and tri embrace that. Cycling does not. Cycling should move to a categorized gran fondo model, probably one with age groups. Perhaps have a citizens class that is not elible for prizes to encourage riders to buy licenses.

Lots of running promoters make a profit. They fight over weekend dates and courses. How many bike racing promoters make anything for their efforts? If the promoters cannot make money then you cannot expect the sport to be healthy.

The difference between bike racing and tris/running events is that the participatory crowd is just trying to improve on prior finishing times over races of equal distance. Bike races are not defined by their length (e..g., there is no 60 mile road race standard like their is a 10k or half-iron distance tri).

Some race course are conducive to having a "citizen/grand fondo" type field. Battenkill is one of them because it involves an interesting single loop course. But circuit races and crits, which are much more common, are not ideal for that type of event because there are safety issues if the fields are too widely dispersed on the course.

[shovelhd]

+100

Neither do the terms "masters" and "bike racer".

Say what?

[Tandem Rider]

+100

Neither do the terms "masters" and "bike racer".

I presume this is a joke??

[CunegoFan]

The difference between bike racing and tris/running events is that the participatory crowd is just trying to improve on prior finishing times over races of equal distance. Bike races are not defined by their length (e..g., there is no 60 mile road race standard like their is a 10k or half-iron distance tri).

Some race course are conducive to having a "citizen/grand fondo" type field. Battenkill is one of them because it involves an interesting single loop course. But circuit races and crits, which are much more common, are not ideal for that type of event because there are safety issues if the fields are too widely dispersed on the course.

In this model there would not be any crits or circuit races. Besides, who gets into bike racing with a dream of doing small loops around a block in an industrial park on the edge of town?

I am thiking of Lotoja as a blueprint. Aside from the normal USAC categories, it offers citizen, tandem, and relay categories. Formalize it and replicate that sort of event all over the country while making it even more friendly to those who just want to be "completers," to dawdle along, get their finisher's medal, and post about it on social media.

[EDS]

From USAC e-mail I am sure you all received today:

2016 Policy and Fee Changes
A renewed focus on grassroots development and anti-doping

Dear [Racer]:
Since starting as CEO at USA Cycling this summer, I致e received a lot of very helpful feedback from our members on a number of issues and areas of concern. As I致e mentioned in past emails and blog entries, some of the top items that our membership feels most strongly about are anti-doping and an increased focus on amateur racing. As we move into the new year, these issues are at the forefront of our 2016 policy changes.
Through close collaboration with all constituents from the positive and passionate to the frustrated we've quickly built plans that start to show real change. I think we have found excellent ways to start to address these issues without putting an unreasonable cost onto our members, which was an important goal for us.
Highlighting the policy changes are: an increased Local Association rebate, which will put more money into the hands of those that manage amateur racing at the local level; a reduction in the one-day beginner license fee for road, track and cyclo-cross events from $15 to $10, thereby reducing a key barrier to entry; improved economics for mountain bike promoters, with a $5 rebate on one-day licenses, the elimination of permitting fees and the removal of the need for one-day licenses for practice days; and the addition of a RaceClean anti-doping surcharge to upper-category racers that will be used to significantly increase the number of anti-doping tests in the U.S. next year, particularly at the amateur level.
In 2015, Local Associations received a $10 rebate for each adult racing membership sold in their regions, which is intended to help grow and improve amateur racing on a local level. In 2016, Local Associations will still receive $10, plus $0.17 per competitive racer day, increasing grassroots funding by roughly 20 percent. Additionally, LAs will no longer be required to contribute to the USA Cycling RaceClean program, saving each LA up to $3,500 per year.
Membership fees for domestic racers will not increase, but a $5 RaceClean anti-doping surcharge will be added to Category 1 mountain bike, and Category 2 and 3 road, track and cyclo-cross memberships. A $25 RaceClean anti-doping surcharge will be added to pro mountain bike and Category 1 road, track and cyclo-cross memberships, and a $50 RaceClean anti-doping surcharge will be added to UCI pro road licenses.
We were loath to increase the racer day surcharge, but we felt it was necessary for the most equitable distribution of our rising insurance costs. And racers must understand how comprehensive and complete our policy is no other insurance coverage comes close to the protection level of our policy. Anything less leaves our community at risk, including our racing members, which we simply will not do. Please see this insurance document for more information.
USA Cycling is in a somewhat difficult financial situation for 2016, but we have worked hard to avoid burdensome price increases on most of our members. By cutting back costs and tightening our belt in Colorado Springs, we are able to do more for grassroots development and raise the bar in our continued fight against doping without an across-the-board membership fee increase.
Given the short time since I致e joined USA Cycling, wholesale business model changes were not feasible for 2016, so some of these changes may appear small, but they could have a large impact and are indicative of our change in direction. We look ahead to the coming months and years to make more substantial changes in an effort to give race directors and members more value from USA Cycling.
Other notable areas of change:
A new one-day license option will be available for former racing members in non-beginner racing categories that want to try racing again without becoming an annual member. Priced at $25, this one-day license will be available as a one-time option for any upper-category former racer through his or her online account starting in Spring 2016.
Race director certifications are no longer required.
Recreational ride event surcharges will increase from $2 per rider/day to $2.25 per rider/day for first 1,000 participants, but will remain at $2 per rider/day for next 1,000 participants, and will decrease to $1.80 per rider/day for all participants after the first 2,000 riders. This tiered pricing structure will assist USAC痴 efforts to support larger participation events.
International junior licenses will drop from $175 to $100.
Professional and elite individual and team membership fees will increase to reflect the greater allocation of resource USA Cycling makes to elite cycling.
Collegiate-only memberships will increase to $45 to fund collegiate programs intended to improve safety and quality of collegiate cycling.
Click here for an outline of all changes, and here for the 2016 schedule of fees.
I hope you agree we are moving in the right direction and recognize this is just the beginning.
Enjoy the ride,
Derek

[EDS]

In this model there would not be any crits or circuit races. Besides, who gets into bike racing with a dream of doing small loops around a block in an industrial park on the edge of town?

I am thiking of Lotoja as a blueprint. Aside from the normal USAC categories, it offers citizen, tandem, and relay categories. Formalize it and replicate that sort of event all over the country while making it even more friendly to those who just want to be "completers," to dawdle along, get their finisher's medal, and post about it on social media.

Crits have the advantage of being able to be held in urban and other areas that might not lend themselves to other race formats. Accessibility is key to attracting new racers and keeping old ones.

[CunegoFan]

Crits have the advantage of being able to be held in urban and other areas that might not lend themselves to other race formats. Accessibility is key to attracting new racers and keeping old ones.

Triathlon has a similar issue yet that sport's growth has outstripped bike racing by miles.

Okay, maybe there does need to be some traditional style racing, but I think I would make the foundation of the sport this sort of mass participation, semi-competitive events. And those would be the prestige events that people would hope to win.

[shovelhd]

Crits have the advantage of being able to be held in urban and other areas that might not lend themselves to other race formats. Accessibility is key to attracting new racers and keeping old ones.

It's also the most spectator friendly event. One could make the case that the velodrome may be as well, but there is no equivalent to a downtown twilight criterium.

[earlfoss]

You guys have some amazing ideas on how to improve the state of bike racing in the USA.

I also don't get the negative attitude towards masters racers. What is wrong with having a category exist for older athletes who don't have the time and ability to race against the P12 fields consistently? Not all of them are over-muscled type A pricks with some dream of glory that only they see. Most of them are pretty alright dudes who just like the challenge of clipping in and racing in a bike race. The generalizations people make about masters racers, and their generally negative perception of roadies say a lot more about themselves than the point they are failing to make.

I'm curious to see where things go with USAC in the coming years. Frankly, I think that they have more pressing problems than amateur doping and the tripling of testing is a bad idea. They are 1 million in the red this year and Derek admitted that isn't a sustainable trajectory. The cost involved associated with the increase in testing has got to outweigh the benefits when that money could be put to better use in other ways. I feel that his rainmaker approach could polarize USAC internally as well. Time will tell if these changes are good. In any case, USAC was due for a change in leadership so let's hope to see some positive things happen in 2016.

[EDS]

Triathlon has a similar issue yet that sport's growth has outstripped bike racing by miles.

Okay, maybe there does need to be some traditional style racing, but I think I would make the foundation of the sport this sort of mass participation, semi-competitive events. And those would be the prestige events that people would hope to win.

Again, you cannot compare a bike race to a tri as racing in a pack requires at least some degree of skill and involves a greater degree of risk then a tri, which is essentially a solo endurance event (unless you are doing an ITU style draft legal tri). Fondos and centuries should absolutely be a venue for those that want the experience and challenge of a participatory event, but you need the real races too I think.

[benb]

It's also the most spectator friendly event. One could make the case that the velodrome may be as well, but there is no equivalent to a downtown twilight criterium.

Yep.. I wasn't really a big fan of racing in crits due to danger but the one big city downtown one I did was amazing. (Funny as I did more crits than anything else I think.) I've watched the Mayor's cup whatever crit in Boston a few times and it's a lot of fun to watch as well.

Fun to watch in person IMO:
- Cross
- Short Track XC (do they do this anymore?)
- Crits
- Downhill AKA death wish (never in a million years would I participate but it's awesome to watch!)
- Hill climbs

Not so fun:
Most everything else
Any kind of race that would lend itself to attracting the participation crowd

I haven't been to a velodrome but I'd imagine that would be fairly fun.

Way back when I went to cross Nationals as a spectator with some teammates and went to MTB Nationals with my wife.. both really funy days to be a spectator.

[shovelhd]

The difference between bike racing and tris/running events is that the participatory crowd is just trying to improve on prior finishing times over races of equal distance. Bike races are not defined by their length (e..g., there is no 60 mile road race standard like their is a 10k or half-iron distance tri).

Some race course are conducive to having a "citizen/grand fondo" type field. Battenkill is one of them because it involves an interesting single loop course. But circuit races and crits, which are much more common, are not ideal for that type of event because there are safety issues if the fields are too widely dispersed on the course.

Bike races can definitely be defined by distance. Time trials, velodrome events, and Olympic and Olympic style (Senior Games) road events have fixed or fixed minimum distances. There was a time when NRC criteriums were all 50 miles for the pro field.

Citizen racing is where I started my career in the 1980's. I can think of one race in the Northeast that holds a citizen race at a USAC event (Portsmouth criterium). I wasn't counting kids races, but you could make a case for them. Citizen races have almost disappeared due to insurance reasons. The question is, what makes them different than a licensed race? Nothing really. Just lower the barrier to entry to make it easier to hold them.

[djg21]

You guys have some amazing ideas on how to improve the state of bike racing in the USA.

I also don't get the negative attitude towards masters racers. What is wrong with having a category exist for older athletes who don't have the time and ability to race against the P12 fields consistently? Not all of them are over-muscled type A pricks with some dream of glory that only they see. Most of them are pretty alright dudes who just like the challenge of clipping in and racing in a bike race. The generalizations people make about masters racers, and their generally negative perception of roadies say a lot more about themselves than the point they are failing to make.

I'm curious to see where things go with USAC in the coming years. Frankly, I think that they have more pressing problems than amateur doping and the tripling of testing is a bad idea. They are 1 million in the red this year and Derek admitted that isn't a sustainable trajectory. The cost involved associated with the increase in testing has got to outweigh the benefits when that money could be put to better use in other ways. I feel that his rainmaker approach could polarize USAC internally as well. Time will tell if these changes are good. In any case, USAC was due for a change in leadership so let's hope to see some positive things happen in 2016.

I believe all racing should be by ability (category) rather than age, except maybe at national age-group events. If you are a 55 year old who races at the the level of a senior cat 1-2, you should be racing as a cat 1-2 irrespective of your age. To have 55 year-old cat 1-2 racers riding with 55 year-old recreational racers (cat 3) is pretty dumb. Having fewer, fuller fields would make racing more manageable for promoters and maintain more parity amongst riders, which would improve the experience for the recreational riders.

[shovelhd]

Many Cat3 racers would not consider themselves "recreational". What level do you race at?

[benb]

Bike races can definitely be defined by distance. Time trials, velodrome events, and Olympic and Olympic style (Senior Games) road events have fixed or fixed minimum distances. There was a time when NRC criteriums were all 50 miles for the pro field.


I don't think it's the same as running/Tri/swimming though. None of us ask each other what our best 40k or 25/50/100 mile time is since it's meaningless across different courses, weather, riding conditions, and drafting considerations. The variation in time for distance is just so much bigger in cycling.

[Tandem Rider]

I don't think it's the same as running/Tri/swimming though. None of us ask each other what our best 40k or 25/50/100 mile time is since it's meaningless across different courses, weather, riding conditions, and drafting considerations. The variation in time for distance is just so much bigger in cycling.

That's sorta right, but FWIW, a 40k TT on a flat to slightly rolling course will give me pretty much the same times, fitness based rather than course based. Drafting and extreme weather will make a much bigger difference. I would expect the faster times in a 100 mile paved and supported GF to all be about 4:00-4:20 because of the shared work and climbing.

[Tandem Rider]

I believe all racing should be by ability (category) rather than age, except maybe at national age-group events. If you are a 55 year old who races at the the level of a senior cat 1-2, you should be racing as a cat 1-2 irrespective of your age. To have 55 year-old cat 1-2 racers riding with 55 year-old recreational racers (cat 3) is pretty dumb. Having fewer, fuller fields would make racing more manageable for promoters and maintain more parity amongst riders, which would improve the experience for the recreational riders.

I think this idea has some merit. I've done some Master's races that had multiple past and current National Champs and former pros in the field. I can't imagine being a Cat4 50+ and looking around and seeing that, some guys were lapped only 1/4 of the way through the race, I felt sorry for those guys. They should have been in a race with riders of their own ability, lots more fun. FWIW, I do jump into some 1-2 races when I'm fit, it ain't no fun when I'm not, and the Master's races are just as fast, just a lot shorter.

[djg21]

Many Cat3 racers would not consider themselves "recreational". What level do you race at?

I hold a Cat 3 license on both the road and the track. I confess I upgraded before Cat 5s existed, and I don't race very frequently any longer, but I maintain my license and from time to time jump in a Cat 3 race (the masters fields always seem to be packed with Cat 1s and 2s who are far faster than I could ever be).

That being said, if you are a Cat 3, you either are young and briefly passing through the category until you upgrade, or you are not now and never will be making a living racing a bicycle. If you are a master Cat 3, you certainly are not racing a bike to make a living. You are a recreational racer. You may be a bicycle enthusiast and a relatively good cyclist who takes his avocation very seriously and spends a lot of time training, but in the end, cycling still is your avocation.

I mentioned Cat 3 masters because in my experience, Cat 4 and Cat 5 masters are kept in a separate field. Having Cat 4 masters race against Cat 1s is a great way to turn new masters riders away from the sport.

[Tandem Rider]

I mentioned Cat 3 masters because in my experience, Cat 4 and Cat 5 masters are kept in a separate field. Having Cat 4 masters race against Cat 1s is a great way to turn new masters riders away from the sport.

Here in the Midwest the only separation is by age, not by category, which IMO, is not an encouraging way to get folks involved as participants.

I don't have a clue as to how such a system would have to be administered, but what we have now is broken.

[earlfoss]

Honest question, how does the category breakdown turn masters in the slower caregories away? Masters have a lot of options here. A masters cat 3 racer can do the M1/2/3, M3/4, or cat 3 race. A Masters cat 4 racer can do M3/4, M4/5, or cat 4.

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/52a52ac6e4b0de7da42e0817/t/54f07f4de4b0325fce351a4e/1425047375408/?format=1000w

I'm not sure what else we can do aside from pay people to come race. I think people's preconceived notions about crits and road racing in general play a bigger role in not wanting to give it a try. As far as I can tell, the options are there and if you don't want to train hard enough to be able to at least hang in any of the 3 different races you can enter, then you should think about downgrading. Everyone wants to win, yeah, but of course you have to work very hard for it.

[djg21]

Honest question, how does the category breakdown turn masters in the slower caregories away? Masters have a lot of options here. A masters cat 3 racer can do the M1/2/3, M3/4, or cat 3 race. A Masters cat 4 racer can do M3/4, M4/5, or cat 4.

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/52a52ac6e4b0de7da42e0817/t/54f07f4de4b0325fce351a4e/1425047375408/?format=1000w

I'm not sure what else we can do aside from pay people to come race. I think people's preconceived notions about crits and road racing in general play a bigger role in not wanting to give it a try. As far as I can tell, the options are there and if you don't want to train hard enough to be able to at least hang in any of the 3 different races you can enter, then you should think about downgrading. Everyone wants to win, yeah, but of course you have to work very hard for it.

Do all those fields fill?

[earlfoss]

Usually each race on the schedule for the masters fields gets 40-60 riders each which is pretty big for an industrial park crit series in Wisconsin in early April. If the weather is nice, 70 rider fields can happen. That is pretty good for any low level race at any point in the season. We have never had problems with people complaining about the race schedule and there are many masters who opt to double up on races (and pay the extra $$ for it). If we decreased the number of options, I'm sure that we'd hear complaints. It's kind of funny because I bet that they'd still come to race anyway because you just can't keep a bike racer from finding something to complain about.

[djg21]

Usually each race on the schedule for the masters fields gets 40-60 riders each which is pretty big for an industrial park crit series in Wisconsin in early April. If the weather is nice, 70 rider fields can happen. That is pretty good for any low level race at any point in the season. We have never had problems with people complaining about the race schedule and there are many masters who opt to double up on races (and pay the extra $$ for it). If we decreased the number of options, I'm sure that we'd hear complaints. It's kind of funny because I bet that they'd still come to race anyway because you just can't keep a bike racer from finding something to complain about.

I've not been to many races with that many options. IME, with the exception of bigger, well-known races, it's been either the senior category or the 35+ category, and for crits you could double-up. I like the discount for multiple entries. I do wonder what would happen if some of the fields were eliminated/consolidated and the races made longer.

[carpediemracing]

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/52a52ac6e4b0de7da42e0817/t/54f07f4de4b0325fce351a4e/1425047375408/?format=1000w


I see some fascinating things (as a promoter).

$2 difference in pre- and day-of? Do you get a lot of day-ofs? I find that a $5 difference becomes negligible in reality due to the $2-3 online fee and the ability to pay via credit card or paypal. At the race it's cash or check. I think $10 extra would be right, but I typically ask for $5-7 I think.

$5.60 in fees, 20+% of the actual entry? The venue and race costs must be inexpensive. Do you do photo finish and place everyone? I looked on USAC and didn't see any results for that permit number (didn't look any further).

Short races, time-wise, with 10 min between events. Do you have scheduling issues when racers go faster or slower, or do you display 5 to go based on lap times and time of day? I struggle with a 10 min break, and I schedule a midday 30-45 minute break to give the officials some respite (length of respite depends on how fast the last race goes).

I'm struggling with how I'll do the spring series for 2016, and seeing something like this makes me question what I'm doing wrong.

[shovelhd]

I don't think it's the same as running/Tri/swimming though. None of us ask each other what our best 40k or 25/50/100 mile time is since it's meaningless across different courses, weather, riding conditions, and drafting considerations. The variation in time for distance is just so much bigger in cycling.

You must not TT or ride the track. It's very common to discuss times, and every venue is different.

[nm87710]

:)

[djg21]

I see some fascinating things (as a promoter).

$2 difference in pre- and day-of? Do you get a lot of day-ofs? I find that a $5 difference becomes negligible in reality due to the $2-3 online fee and the ability to pay via credit card or paypal. At the race it's cash or check. I think $10 extra would be right, but I typically ask for $5-7 I think.

$5.60 in fees, 20+% of the actual entry? The venue and race costs must be inexpensive. Do you do photo finish and place everyone? I looked on USAC and didn't see any results for that permit number (didn't look any further).

Short races, time-wise, with 10 min between events. Do you have scheduling issues when racers go faster or slower, or do you display 5 to go based on lap times and time of day? I struggle with a 10 min break, and I schedule a midday 30-45 minute break to give the officials some respite (length of respite depends on how fast the last race goes).

I'm struggling with how I'll do the spring series for 2016, and seeing something like this makes me question what I'm doing wrong.

I like the fact that there appear to be no cash prizes. What type of merchandise is awarded? Can I assume it is provided by sponsors and not subsidized by entry fees? I would think this helps keep entry fees in check?

[shovelhd]

I hold a Cat 3 license on both the road and the track. I confess I upgraded before Cat 5s existed, and I don't race very frequently any longer, but I maintain my license and from time to time jump in a Cat 3 race (the masters fields always seem to be packed with Cat 1s and 2s who are far faster than I could ever be).

That being said, if you are a Cat 3, you either are young and briefly passing through the category until you upgrade, or you are not now and never will be making a living racing a bicycle. If you are a master Cat 3, you certainly are not racing a bike to make a living. You are a recreational racer. You may be a bicycle enthusiast and a relatively good cyclist who takes his avocation very seriously and spends a lot of time training, but in the end, cycling still is your avocation.

I mentioned Cat 3 masters because in my experience, Cat 4 and Cat 5 masters are kept in a separate field. Having Cat 4 masters race against Cat 1s is a great way to turn new masters riders away from the sport.

By your definition, Cat1's and 2's are recreational because they don't draw a salary. I'm fine with that definition. Age group racing adds a second dimension for older racers. They can race Masters in one race and their category in another on the same day. What's wrong with that? How does restriction help the sport? Hi about the Cat3 that can do the Cat3 or Cat3/4 and the P/1/2/3 on the same day? Why should he be treated differently than a Master?

[shovelhd]

I hold a Cat 3 license on both the road and the track. I confess I upgraded before Cat 5s existed, and I don't race very frequently any longer, but I maintain my license and from time to time jump in a Cat 3 race (the masters fields always seem to be packed with Cat 1s and 2s who are far faster than I could ever be).

That being said, if you are a Cat 3, you either are young and briefly passing through the category until you upgrade, or you are not now and never will be making a living racing a bicycle. If you are a master Cat 3, you certainly are not racing a bike to make a living. You are a recreational racer. You may be a bicycle enthusiast and a relatively good cyclist who takes his avocation very seriously and spends a lot of time training, but in the end, cycling still is your avocation.

I mentioned Cat 3 masters because in my experience, Cat 4 and Cat 5 masters are kept in a separate field. Having Cat 4 masters race against Cat 1s is a great way to turn new masters riders away from the sport.

By your definition, Cat1's and 2's are recreational because they don't draw a salary. I'm fine with that definition. Age group racing adds a second dimension for older racers. They can race Masters in one race and their category in another on the same day. What's wrong with that? How does restriction help the sport? How about the Cat3 that can do the Cat3 or Cat3/4 and the P/1/2/3 on the same day? Why should he be treated differently than a Master?

[djg21]

By your definition, Cat1's and 2's are recreational because they don't draw a salary. I'm fine with that definition. Age group racing adds a second dimension for older racers. They can race Masters in one race and their category in another on the same day. What's wrong with that? How does restriction help the sport? Hi about the Cat3 that can do the Cat3 or Cat3/4 and the P/1/2/3 on the same day? Why should he be treated differently than a Master?

Cat 1s, and to some degree Cat 2s, are racing at a more competitive level that generally requires a more substantial commitment. They may be amateur in that they don't draw salaries, but I never knew many Cat 1s who were able to race competitively at that level while holding down high-pressure, full-time jobs and tending to family obligations.

Sure it is fun to race twice in a day at crits -- that was the best thing about turning 35 many years ago. But I'm thinking about the promoters and logistics of putting on a race and attracting new masters riders to the sport. It seems to me that it would be easier for promoters if the numbers of fields were reduced, and better for racers if the races could be longer with fuller fields, and without the vast disparities in ability you get in open masters races. Fewer fields certainly would be easier to manage for a road race where there is no opportunity to race in multiple fields.

As to Cat 3s having options to race multiple times in a day, I suppose it would depend on demographics and demand, and how filled the fields are. If you can't fill a pro-1-2 field, and 3s want to race, great. On the other hand, if a 3 or 3/4 field can't be filled, maybe there is no need to have 3s in the P-1-2 field.

If you could race a single 90 minute crit or circuit race rather than two 45 minute races, would that be an issue? I would much prefer a single long race, especially a crit.

[shovelhd]

Cat 1s, and to some degree Cat 2s, are racing at a more competitive level that generally requires a more substantial commitment. They may be amateur in that they don't draw salaries, but I never knew many Cat 1s who were able to race competitively at that level while holding down high-pressure, full-time jobs and tending to family obligations.

Sure it is fun to race twice in a day at crits -- that was the best thing about turning 35 many years ago. But I'm thinking about the promoters and logistics of putting on a race and attracting new masters riders to the sport. It seems to me that it would be easier for promoters if the numbers of fields were reduced, and better for racers if the races could be longer with fuller fields, and without the vast disparities in ability you get in open masters races. Fewer fields certainly would be easier to manage for a road race where there is no opportunity to race in multiple fields.

As to Cat 3s having options to race multiple times in a day, I suppose it would depend on demographics and demand, and how filled the fields are. If you can't fill a pro-1-2 field, and 3s want to race, great. On the other hand, if a 3 or 3/4 field can't be filled, maybe there is no need to have 3s in the P-1-2 field.

If you could race a single 90 minute crit or circuit race rather than two 45 minute races, would that be an issue? I would much prefer a single long race, especially a crit.

Your argument is sort of all over the place. Cat1's and 2's have a greater commitment so they are less "recreational" so they should be able to race more in one day? Did I get that right? Just because your are in a higher category doesn't make you more committed. You can take years off and return fat and out of shape and race your category. It takes a commitment to get to these categories but not necessarily to maintain it. Around here, the P/1/2 only have one field and the only opportunity to race twice is with the Masters if they can. And BTW I know plenty of Cat1 and Cat2 riders, young and old, with full time jobs and family commitments, that race competitively at that level. I was one of them.

There are reasons why a promoter offers a P/1/2/3 field instead of a P/1/2 field. There is a better chance of filling it, and Cat3's can race at least two times per day. The P/1/2 race will usually be a better race. There are less back markers to pull. That's one of the main reasons we don't have 50 mile/90 minute crits. One or two teams go to the front and hammer the field from the gun and by the 60 minute point you have a couple dozen riders doing a team pursuit on the road. I raced plenty of 50 mile crits in the 80's when they were popular. The fields were full and often huge, but not because the race was long. It was because there big crowds, large prize lists, primes every lap or two, and some of the pros got paid start money.

[djg21]

Your argument is sort of all over the place. Cat1's and 2's have a greater commitment so they are less "recreational" so they should be able to race more in one day? Did I get that right? Just because your are in a higher category doesn't make you more committed. You can take years off and return fat and out of shape and race your category. It takes a commitment to get to these categories but not necessarily to maintain it. Around here, the P/1/2 only have one field and the only opportunity to race twice is with the Masters if they can. And BTW I know plenty of Cat1 and Cat2 riders, young and old, with full time jobs and family commitments, that race competitively at that level. I was one of them.

There are reasons why a promoter offers a P/1/2/3 field instead of a P/1/2 field. There is a better chance of filling it, and Cat3's can race at least two times per day. The P/1/2 race will usually be a better race. There are less back markers to pull. That's one of the main reasons we don't have 50 mile/90 minute crits. One or two teams go to the front and hammer the field from the gun and by the 60 minute point you have a couple dozen riders doing a team pursuit on the road. I raced plenty of 50 mile crits in the 80's when they were popular. The fields were full and often huge, but not because the race was long. It was because there big crowds, large prize lists, primes every lap or two, and some of the pros got paid start money.

I never undertook to address whether riders should be able to race multiple times in a day. As I said, this discussion is about minimizing the burden on promoters who set out to promote smaller, "grass roots" races and increasing participation across all fields in those races.

As to how serious cat 3 masters may be, I have no doubt that many take it very seriously. But that doesn't mean they are anything but enthusiastic and serious recreational racers in the end. In fact, that may be the definition of a Cat 3.

[shovelhd]

I never undertook to address whether riders should be able to race multiple times in a day. As I said, this discussion is about minimizing the burden on promoters who set out to promote smaller, "grass roots" races and increasing participation across all fields in those races.

As to how serious cat 3 masters may be, I have no doubt that many take it very seriously. But that doesn't mean they are anything but enthusiastic and serious recreational racers in the end. In fact, that may be the definition of a Cat 3.

The thing is, Cat5 and Cat4/5 fields are typically full around here, so reducing the entry cost isn't very effective. Juniors have always gotten a break and will continue to get a break. USAC just increased the burden on promoters by raising the insurance cost.

I think you are hung up on the category defining the rider. It doesn't.

[benb]

Even the categories are meaningless due to the variance in competitiveness in different geographic areas... Cat 3 in Boston, NYC, LA, SFBA, etc.. does not necessarily mean the same thing as other areas where fields are smaller & large teams are not as well organized. (IMO)

[shovelhd]

The category is more about achievement than capability.

[benb]

Yah I meant more about the commitment required on average to achieve a particular category in a particular area. The more racers in your area and the higher their level of commitment the higher yours will need to be.

And then there are the freaks who just shoot straight to the top due to huge natural talent...

[shovelhd]

Or something else.

You make a good point about regional differences.

[Tandem Rider]

Even the categories are meaningless due to the variance in competitiveness in different geographic areas... Cat 3 in Boston, NYC, LA, SFBA, etc.. does not necessarily mean the same thing as other areas where fields are smaller & large teams are not as well organized. (IMO)

My experience is different than that. Otherwise, we'd show up at Nationals, compare addresses, declare a winner, hand out medals and go home.

A newly minted 3 moved here to the "sticks" from one of the "competitive" areas you mentioned, told me he was going to be riding 2's here "cause it's so much harder and faster there". He got dropped by the 3's, almost all year long. I actually felt bad for the guy. Racing is racing, racers are racers, there are guys with good physiology and lots of experience all over the country, they will make the racing hard.

[benb]

It's more nuanced then that and individual variations are huge.

Guy who moves from the city with big fields and gets dropped in the sticks with little fields might be badly in need of experience climbing or something like that. (I remember seeing wide eyes from NYC riders seeing big hills/mountains for the same time after racing a lot in central park)

Or he could have gotten his results on a big team where things like leadouts are a factor, now he's in the sticks racing by himself for himself, etc..

I do think the fact that some areas are going to have 20 guys on the same team in a field and others aren't is a difference one way or the other. If you've got 1-2 teammates in a race and someone else shows up with 20 it's a factor. Things might be more even handed in the low-participation areas.

People who show up to Nationals are highly self selecting, they have to have the motivation, time, and money to travel for one thing.

[shovelhd]

The regional differences from my perspective equate simply to volume, and particularly to Masters. There's simply more ex-pros, national and Olympic champions, and Cat1/2 in the cycling heavy areas. That doesn't mean that SoCal racing is harder racing than in the Northeast, for example.

I define those areas as SoCal (including AZ), NorCal, TX, FL, and the Northeast.

[Lewis Moon]

The regional differences from my perspective equate simply to volume, and particularly to Masters. There's simply more ex-pros, national and Olympic champions, and Cat1/2 in the cycling heavy areas. That doesn't mean that SoCal racing is harder racing than in the Northeast, for example.

I define those areas as SoCal (including AZ), NorCal, TX, FL, and the Northeast.

Oh hell yes. In masters, we have a LOT of old retired guys that train full time. We have young guys too. On one particular KOM, I'm within 20 seconds of Daniel Eaton (https://www.strava.com/athletes/2113364). I'm sure he had to change a flat on the way up.

[Tandem Rider]

The regional differences from my perspective equate simply to volume, and particularly to Masters. There's simply more ex-pros, national and Olympic champions, and Cat1/2 in the cycling heavy areas. That doesn't mean that SoCal racing is harder racing than in the Northeast, for example.

I define those areas as SoCal (including AZ), NorCal, TX, FL, and the Northeast.

I think field size has a lot to do with it as well. It's a different game to sit behind the "shock absorber" at 29mph with 70 other riders than it is to repeatedly stick your nose in the wind at those speeds with 15 or 20. It's not easier, just a different type of fitness and skillset.