2013 - Superior Morgul Classic

65 Comments

Let the promoters decide

I don't think BRAC needs to solve the problem; let BRAC define the Cup categories and let the promoters do whatever makes sense for them on race day.

That could mean having Men 4 A and Men 4 B, or it could mean Men 4 and Master's Men 4. If a promoter historically doesn't have too many Cat 4s, he doesn't have to do anything.

Different promoters will come up with different solutions. If you have a short course with lots of turnarounds, you might choose to run fewer categories. If you're running a hill climb, you might only need to run 4 categories.

If we let the promoters be efficient, the entry fees might even go down.

"BRAC define the Cup

"BRAC define the Cup categories and let the promoters do whatever makes sense for them on race day"

You can't have a defined CUP Policy then have someone change it at the last minute. What would be the point of having a structured series and show to a race and it be something else.

The is CUP policy for all the read on http://www.coloradocycling.org/.

Races, registration, flyers are planned more than 30 days in advance.

Not that confusing

What I mean is: if a promoter combines cup categories, then it would have to be scored separately. Also, the "Cup points" are a lame excuse to ram specific race categories down promoter's throats. Having 3 Cat 4 fields every race does not necessarily make sense.

Pre-USAC

Pre-USAC we didn't have to run cat 5s. This was the reason we needed three cat. 4 fields. Races used to have 75+ in each. With the cat. 5 USAC crap this added one or two more cats per day. See 20 minute Cat. 5 crits...
Go back away from USAC so we can define what makes since with Colorado Demographics. We also have a bunch of "sandbaggers" in the 5s because of the One-Day only in 5s rule.

Because

Age is not a good determination of ability.
Why not just do 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 in a day? Would still need to split out 3s, 4s, and 5s into age groups because of field size at some large races.

Lots of whinning about masters cats

Sorry boys but you do lose strength, recovery and fitness as you age. Now those of us who have raced for +25 years know the difference. There are several valid reasons to keep the masters catagories. Us old guys have don't heal as well as we used to, and we do not take the chances that the younger men do. So we are generally saver. 2, there are very few of us old guys who are going to do a race over 75miles. Because we do not recover as well, we can not put the training in to do those distances with the young guys anymore. Plus we generallly have more commitments, so time is also an issue. I prefer to race with the 55+, when I was younger I liked the 45+123, and the 35+ open. They matched my skill and my strength, and mindset. We all want to race in groups where we are competitive. Guys that are getting dropped every week, or always finishing in the back of the group are not going to hang around very long. We want more racers not less!

Lots of whinning about masters cats

Sorry boys but you do lose strength, recovery and fitness as you age. Now those of us who have raced for +25 years know the difference. There are several valid reasons to keep the masters catagories. Us old guys have don't heal as well as we used to, and we do not take the chances that the younger men do. So we are generally saver. 2, there are very few of us old guys who are going to do a race over 75miles. Because we do not recover as well, we can not put the training in to do those distances with the young guys anymore. Plus we generallly have more commitments, so time is also an issue. I prefer to race with the 55+, when I was younger I liked the 45+123, and the 35+ open. They matched my skill and my strength, and mindset. We all want to race in groups where we are competitive. Guys that are getting dropped every week, or always finishing in the back of the group are not going to hang around very long. We want more racers not less!

this sounds an awful lot like

this sounds an awful lot like the "everyone deserves a medal" type of argument. If your life commitments, ability to train, recovery, etc keeps you from being competitive at a 2, then downgrade according to the rules and race as a 3. Or a 4. I can understand the safety concern, but on the other hand you fail to acknowledge that the additional categories that you want are diluting the race day and make it difficult for promoters to run a fiscally feasible race.

The real problem here was

The real problem here was when we went from 35 plus, 45 plus, 55 plus and started to add age/ability catagories like 35 3's, 45 4's, 35 4's. BRAC made a bad call adding those new "special snowflake catagories for men", but the masters in those groups were a loud bunch. That was a sort fo a gateway drug for lower end masters guys to get exactly what you suggst, the "everyone deserves a medal". 35 3's has not grown the sport, I am sorry. It has taken guys out of the 3's, the 35 Open, and even the 45 open, because guys realized it was an easier option and they could do better.

I am a masters guy and I think we need to move to 40 plus and then simplify the whole thing, down to just ages, like 40 plus, 50 plus, 60 plus. OR at worst add a 40 plus cat 4 for guys who are new and over 40.

Could not agree more.

Could not agree more. Simpler is better -- just get back to senior categories and open master's categories.

And if we can't keep it simple, then just go "all in" and have a separate master's license with separate categories, so master's racers can be separated based on ability and not age. Why have a 35+4 with 45 guys and a 45+4 with 55 guys when you could just have a single "Master's B" race with close to 100 guys?

Marketing 101

Any promoter that wants to run a fiscally feasible race better ensure the masters in lesser categories have the best race experience possible.

A quick check of BRAC membership here and the largest segment of license holders are Cat 4s between 35 and 55, followed by cat 3s in the same age groups.

http://www.coloradocycling.org/member-breakdown

I didn't do the research to investigate racer days in these segments, but I'd be awful surprised if they didn't exceed racer days in the senior categories by a significant amount.

This age group is subsidizing all the other racing, whether it be through entry fees, or using their greater disposable income to purchase new cycling equipment more frequently, which is the ultimate goal of sponsorship.

If you feel that the race experience is diluted, by all means race your senior category. However, for the many racers that do this as a hobby, which is all it really is, the categories are part of the appeal, whether it be knowing that everyone in the race has to go to work on Monday, or that you didn't throw down an entry fee to ride by yourself.

Dilution

I am a masters racer, and I think the racing often is diluted at the smaller races. Having 3 cat 4 fields of 30 each is not only more work for the promoter, it makes for less interesting racing than larger fields. It seems to me that categories should change from time to time as demographics shift. It's not about whether it's "right" or "wrong" to have masters 4s, it's that given the numbers, 2 fields would be better than 3.

You don't dilute the SM4 by

You don't dilute the SM4 by having SM45+4. The 45+$ is always one of the largest racing groups. The 35+4 cat is a bit odd. Same with 35+3 and 35+ Open. You don't see any International Pros over 45 yrs of age. Even Jens (just one special dood) won't be around much longer. The body does not recover as quick. That means more recovery days and fewer training days. Don't mistake this from being able to ride at 60% intensity everyday. We're talking races and intervals --training to be competitive. The 35+ doesn't make sense to me with international pros still competing and winning. A lot of people are seeing great success in their mid to upper 30's and not just with cycling. Someone mentioned that if you can't compete at that level, downgrade. Well, there is no downgrading from a 4 to a 5.

Nothing against the race or

Nothing against the race or the organizers, but the revised course was nowhere near as hard as the original. Much fewer riders dropped and relatively large fields hitting the wall together for the uphill drag race.

First priority is safety, and the organizers did a great job on that and did the best they could for the race, given the circumstances. But a lot of riders had surprisingly fresh legs at the finish, and that would never happen on the original.

Have you actually raced BOTH courses?

You are the very first person I've heard say the out and back was EASIER than the full circuit. It was over a mile shorter yet had roughly 250 feet more climbing per lap. Throw in the almost constant stiff crosswinds (Marshall Road is much better protected) and 180 degree turns and I thought it was a real hum-dinger.

The only thing I'd change is the location of the cones on the wall. I understand the safety concerns for the downhill but I saw far more near crashes with racers smacking the cones on the uphill yet everyone was 3-wide max with plenty of space on the descent.

Pages

Add new comment