2012 - Hugo Road Race

Name: Hugo Road Race p/b CyclingEvents.com
When: 06/09/2012
Where: Roads around Hugo Colorado



Stephen Haydel re. Hugo start times

Why are you combining groups and sending them off at the same time? Don't you remember how badly this worked out last year?

What do you expect to happen when an 6 man group breaks up the road? Do we need to read everyone's number to figure out if the break is in our group?

What is your vision on how these races will go smoothly?

That applies to riders from

That applies to riders from different starting groups. No way to enforce it on categories that start together in one group. You'd have to DQ everyone at the start.

As for the concern about having to read the numbers for folks who're attacking to see if you need to chase or not, that's a very valid point.


Time to call the Wambulance. Really, racing with combined categories, oh my gosh, how do we tell one category from the next! I raced as a 3, we got combined with the 1,2's, guess what, there was winner in each category. I raced my tail off and worked with the other group because it was explicitly explained by the ref's that this would be allowed. If you read the flyer from Hugo, you would have seen this. Where is the finish line? 20 yards one way or the other. I know, your a paying customer, you expect to be coddled. Tough. Bike race organizers work long hours to get these things put together,it ain't easy, and it doesn't profit many. Were now relegated to industrial parking lots and uphill sprints.

I see this as a good thing in

I see this as a good thing in a windy, 78-mile race = more wheels to suck!

That said, I would love to know ahead of time where the finish is going to be. Last year we were rolling casually along when all of a sudden there was a 1K to go sign posted kind of randomly along the road...

Was the sign 1km from the

Was the sign 1km from the finish? If so, it wasn't randomly placed there. Maybe you didn't pay attention to pre-race instructions or just lost track of how far you'd gone, but I'd bet they told you before the start or in the flier where the finish was.

I don't know dude. Let me

I don't know dude. Let me bust out my measuring tape and time machine and I'll let you know.

Currently--3 days before the race--the web site states that "Most will race around 78 Miles" and "We are working on moving the finish to the staging road in the Town of Hugo."

Your incorrect presumptions about my attentiveness to the official's instructions aside, all I'm saying is that, as an appreciative paying customer who has entered every Cycling Events road race this and last season, just thought I'd offer the feedback that it would be nice to know where the finish line is prior to the start of the race.

I know Mr. Haydel reads these comments. Perhaps he has some current info to share in this regard.

Combined fields

La Vuelta de Bisbee, one of the big old-school classics, (now cancelled since 2011) combined two fields for the men and 2 for women. In the road races, the fields would split up fairly well and riders would finish where they could. It was a successful and epic event since the 1970s that made money for the promotors every year. They cancelled it for un-disclosed reasons.

Too many cats = race cannot break even

Guess what fans? We have too many categories in CO and that is why they are combining start times. From what Stephen said last year the police required them to have one car per start time and that made it too expensive. I am not sure what size field is optimum, but in many CO races the average is under 20, and that does not work financially.

It is ironic that Stephen was one of the people who lobbied hard for adding more categories like 45 4's and 35 3's (he races 35 3’s). Now we have too many categories, that are too small. And it is his race where he now has to go back to the future and combine fields. The ACA needs to address this and come up with a real solution. 40 plus for masters? Start to run men’s 1/2/3 races? Masters A, B, D? What other ideas are out there?

40 plus
50 plus
40 plus cat 4
women’s 1/2/3
women’s 3/4 and women’s masters

It is not that hard.

Groundhog day

Here's an idea - let's not rehash this topic again. Over the last several years this topic comes up every 2-3 months with the same old ideas and suggestions for the ACA. The final result is always the same, we realize that the category system is flawed but probably better than anything we can come up with.

If they would make all races

If they would make all races to include Cat 5 and modify its requirements, you could get rid of age groups.

1. Add the "Novice" category and require that nobody can have raced in any type of racing (Cross, MTB, Road, TT, Triathlon) with a bike before. If they have, they go to Cat 5. Make all races include Novice races.
2. Eliminate the 35+4 and 45+4. They all race in Cat 5.
3. Cat 5 requirement for upgrade to 4 is like the Cat 4 to 3 upgrade. Eliminate the "Complete 10 mass-start races" for the Cat 5

4. Eliminate the Cat 35+3.
5. Eliminate the SW 35+, SW 45+, SW 55+, and SW 65+ races OR make them all mass start and sort them out at the finish. I am all for trying to increase women in racing, but if the large men's races are to be cut, so should the tiny women's cats. They usually have 3-8 women racing in those age groups. Often only one woman in the 65+.

Lemme see if i have this right:

Cycling Events refuses to pay outrageous fee for an unproven, unreliable timing system.

ACA relegates the event to bottom tier RMRC status, which hobbles their numbers.

So effectively- Hugo dies cuz it refuses to be extorted into subsidizing ACAs catastrophic timing system blunder.

Keep up the good work, ACA!


I like that suggestion. I can say I'd rather race "40+ 1-4" and get my quads ripped off by a Cat1 than race a 22 year old. I see no reason the chip system can't be used to then score/time based on Cat, but that is also a simple concept that escapes action. I do think it is time to look at the whole system and how it can change to be more inclusive and therefore you get more racers and don't have races failing. Whining and bitching will happen no matter what, most of which will probably right here.

Creation of all of the

Creation of all of the categories has been driven from the bottom (cat 4s and then cat 3s), not from the top. From the cat 1/2 perspective, yes we want people to have a little experience and know how to handle their bike but we weren't the ones that drove the 'exclusivity' of the 35+ 1/2 field. In fact, not sure where that came from and no one with an official capacity in the ACA has been able to provide a solid answer. As a result, our numbers have been quite thin this year.

Ironic Indeed

CyclingEvents.com started us down this road towards all the age-ability hybrid race groups (35+/3, 35+/4, 45+/4, 35+/1-2, 45+/1-2-3, 55+/1-2-3-4, 65+/1-2-3-4). Interesting that their event is one of the first ones to get canceled because of the proliferation of race groups.

How about simplifying it to something more like:

Everyone above the age of 40 has two categories on their license. (Meaning they can race in the senior or master races)
Lettered (master category)
Numbered (senior category)

Everyone below the age of 40 has one category on their license. (Meaning they can only race in the senior races)

There is no

There is no USCF...........

You can do what the poster is proposing, you would just need some guidelines, say A is for 1/2 riders. B is for 2/3/4 riders. c is for 4/5.

I agree #'s are down. But then why are we adding categories? People like Stephen sold us on the idea that all these masters left the sport after 35 plus cat 4. So if we added more cat we would grow the sport. The ACA drank the cool aid and went back for more. Someone needs to admit there has been no growth we have only canabalized the current cats. So be it, lets figure out a solution going forward.

I would disagree that RR are dead. Why does the Boulder Roubaix get such big numbers? Superior had pretty good numbers. Durango sold out and was huge. RR are not dead, but the customer is only willing to do certain events. IMO Hugo was not worth it, 4 hours of driving, junky course, I have much better things to do with a day and I have done every RR offered so far this year. On the other hand I always drove up to do your RR and crit. It was a further drive, but the RR was interesting and you made it a weekend (I also liked the Glenwood crit...).

According to the BRAC

According to the BRAC Website, here are the number of starters over the past few years:
2012: 302 (pre-registered)
2011: 359
2010: 405
2009: 500

Race day reg and silver status would have helped, but this race has been sparsely attended and running on fumes for years.

It's a good race and I hope it comes back and is successful going forward.

Supply and Demand Race Fees

It would be interesting if race fees were a function of participant numbers to actual cost. An economy of scale scenario if you will. The more racers you have the entry fee goes down to a published minimum, or inflates to cover costs. For example in the Hugo situaton the $300 loss spread over 302 racers would be a $9.93 premium. I'd pay $10 more to race. I know it's no that simple but gives me something to think about while I do nothing at work.

on a side-note why do people complain about the timing system? I think it works awesome. I use to race a lot of MTB races and it took hours at the event and DAYS to get your results posted on-line and they would be wrong.

On a second side note I'm all for simplifying age/cats. Don't let it turn in to mountain bike like cats where you can be the 30-34-Male-SingleSpeed-Rigid-Tubeless-Seatless-NoWaterBottle-National Champ.

"it took hours at the event

"it took hours at the event and DAYS to get your results posted on-line and they would be wrong."

Hmmm...you must have missed the Morgul fiasco. Not to pile on against the chip system--just the facts--most results this season have been a >24 hour affair and have often been altered up to several days later. ACA blames racers for not pre-registering or updating their profile info. In effect, this puts the onus for accurate results on the racing population and that seems like a bad idea all around. I think the guys from Without Limits were making that same point when they openly bailed on the chip system a few weeks ago.

I've done most of the local road races so far this season and somewhat ironically, the fastest and most accurate results came from Mead, which didn't use the chip. In fact the results were posted by the time I got home from the race.

Will there be anything left but crits?

Sad to see one of the only true road races on the schedule this year in Colorado canceled due to low turnout. Plenty of crits though. Seems people are more content to ride around in a circle for 45 minutes to an hour than do a road race. Is this the future of cycling? If I recall, the promoter last year was under pressure to shorten some categories race distances but did not because it would defeat the purpose of having a "long road race" that we could be proud of. Since its easier, maybe in the future we will just think about cycling and watch it on TV. Wouldn't want to exert ourselves too much.

If it existed [in July], would anybody show up?

Speaking to this, I would really like the hear what other people think it would take to get a high quality, well attended, local road race on the calendar after Memorial Day?

Part of me thinks the lack of attendance has to do with all the factors mentioned here. But I also see racer interest dropping off severely come June.

So how much of that has to do with the anemic local summer road racing calendar/chip systems/watered down categories and how much of it has to do with people just moving onto other things in the summer? If some promoter were to make a big effort to put a great local road race in say July, would it get enough people out to be viable? Not a rhetorical question, I'd actually like to hear some opinions on this...

evans is GIGANTIC every year

evans is GIGANTIC every year and its in late july.

granted some of that is citizens.

but i think if we could find courses closer to the front range in the summer, people would show up.

Schedule's a big part of it

Crit's and hill climbs can survive in summer with 250-300 riders, because they're cheaper to put on. Basically, April and May are the road racing season. I don't understand it, but it is what it is. Personally, I'd rather spend March and April doing long rides to lay a base for long races in July and August, instead of doing the long rides in January and February (not that it was so bad, this year).

how can we know that people

how can we know that people wouldnt race RRs in the summer if most of the RRs we have in the summer are in glenwood or salida or hugo and involve huge travel?

Rist Race has typically done pretty well up in Fort Collins. people will do them, they just wont drive all day to get to them.

Anything left but crits reply

I agree with David,

It seems we are heading towards seasons filled with crits and hill climbs. Not to talk smack to those who target those races. Those cats are strong, fast, and smart. However, to me road racing is a critical element in cycling. Long hard racing miles require the most enduring of training schedules and ultimate dedication to the sport. And no, I don't just race road races. I show up for everything I can. Mainly because I can always use the training but also because I fully support the sport of bike racing.

It's just sad that Colorado of all places is showing signs of an end to bike racing.