categories

[Nick Burns]

Cat 5s should be REQUIRED to upgrade. It makes no sense to have "career cat 5s". It was bad enough
before they added the 5th category.

"Raptor" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> fork wrote:
> > What do the racing categories (Cat 1, Cat 3...) stand for? Thanks
>
> Since I post my share of stupid questions (no offense meant), I'll break protocol and actually
> answer. Of course, I'm not one to speak authoritatively on the rules... (See "Dumbass rules.")
>
> Cat 5 is entry level. After 3 races, you automatically become a Cat 4. Cat 4 is entry level with 3
> races under your belt. Cat 3 is a Cat 4 who's won a few Cat 4 races. Etc.
>
> Despite my disclaimer, I'm 100% confident in the accuracy of the above, and you should be
> too. Really.
>
> --
> --
> Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall "I'm not proud. We really haven't done everything we
> could to protect our customers. Our products just aren't engineered for security." --Microsoft VP
> in charge of Windows OS Development, Brian Valentine.

 

[Nick Burns]

Why are fields so often split in to say, 2 groups of 50 rather than 1 group of 100? Is this a
judgment call on the part of the promoters or a permit issue? I really enjoy the larger fields.

"Casey Kerrigan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:040620031625249293%[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Nick Burns <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > When you consider all of the problems the promoters have in filling some of the races, I think
> > you are correct. At the very least, it should be simplified. I say segregate everyone in to
> > licensed
and
> > unlicensed riders. Then make a rule that you have to have some number of "training" races before
> > you get to endanger everyone else. Guys like Tom
K
> > could just race with the public. The "real" racers would get much larger fields.
>
> IN Nor Cal the promoters aren't having problems filling the more popular categories. In the mroe
> popular races if you don't pre-Reg you run the risk of not gettign into the race. We have even had
> some Cat 4 women races reach the field limit and either have to turn some riders away or add an
> overflow event. The only thing wrong with som many categories is dawn to dusk race schedules when
> promoters try to include races for everyone. In Nor Cal most races even offer 35+ Cat 4/5 racesin
> addition to a masters 35+ 1/2/3 and a 45/55 race.

 

[Casey Kerrigan]

In article <[email protected]>, Nick Burns <[email protected]> wrote:

> Cat 5s should be REQUIRED to upgrade. It makes no sense to have "career cat 5s". It was bad enough
> before they added the 5th category.
>
Hey if someon's training time of physical ability only allow them to be competitive at the Cat 5
level why should they be forced to upgrade? Nothing wrong with being a career Cat 5 as long as the
rider isn't placing in the top 10 every week. Even if someone is placing every week in the Cat 5s
since the upgrade is based on experience only it isn't like this rider is stealing upgrade points
from other riders who want to upgrade.

 

[Casey Kerrigan]

In article <[email protected]>, Nick Burns <[email protected]> wrote:

> Why are fields so often split in to say, 2 groups of 50 rather than 1 group of 100? Is this a
> judgment call on the part of the promoters or a permit issue? I really enjoy the larger fields.
>

By USCF rules races for Cat 5 only or Cat 4 women only are limited to 50 riders for safety
reasons. On some courses the promoters and the Chief Official decide to limit the field again for
safety reasons.

 

[Davide Tosi]

"xzzy" <[email protected]> wrote:

>My 2 cents on another post in this thread regarding UCI points and Belgium having the most points
>and T1 teams.

Actually it's Italy and not Belgium.

> This is a self fulfilling prophecy because majority of the UCI points are in the European
> circuit = the so called world ranking points should really be called European ranking points.

If you 'merikans showed to be able to organize big races with high prize money on a conistent basis,
you would have also more UCI points on your races. Unfortunately you do not seem to able to do that.
Do I have to remind you what happened to the Tour de Trump or the World Cup Americas GP?

 

[Jeff Jones]

"Bart" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I like it our way too, real racers have the Belgian federation races, the delusionsal ones and
> those 'just for occasional fun' can compete in small side-federations with one day licenses etc.
>
From what I can gather, there are four or five different associations in Belgium that organise races
(KBWB (the real deal), WAOD, OVWF/VWF, LRC (delusional category) + very local races and
cyclosportifs (just for fun) -

rather than ability or perceived ability.

I've never tried any of the other federations, but I know that their races are generally much
shorter (60-70 km) and a bit slower. And the way that the KBWB races are run, there's just no way
it'd work with more grades. Tradition, safety, prizemoney, logistics etc. The courses are too short
and it would be a total mess running races concurrently, and it would take all bloody day if not.
The poor spectators would have to start drinking too early for a start, and you'd get "Mr Sandman"
playing for 6 hours of the day rather than 3. That would crack anyone.

cheers, Jeff

 

[Nick Burns]

Because they are then not allowing the true novices a category of their own. That is why it keeps
expanding, because of sand baggers. Every time a new category is added, the stated attempt is to add
a category for novices. After it fills up with sandbaggers, they add another and so on. That is why
4 and 5 were added and sooner or later people will demand a 6th. Soon they will complain that cat 5
is too tough to learn in. I hear whining about that already.

"Casey Kerrigan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:050620032057517980%[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Nick Burns <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Cat 5s should be REQUIRED to upgrade. It makes no sense to have "career
cat
> > 5s". It was bad enough before they added the 5th category.
> >
> Hey if someon's training time of physical ability only allow them to be competitive at the Cat 5
> level why should they be forced to upgrade? Nothing wrong with being a career Cat 5 as long as the
> rider isn't placing in the top 10 every week. Even if someone is placing every week in the Cat 5s
> since the upgrade is based on experience only it isn't like this rider is stealing upgrade points
> from other riders who want to upgrade.

 

[Casey Kerrigan]

In article <[email protected]>, Nick Burns <[email protected]> wrote:

> Because they are then not allowing the true novices a category of their own. That is why it keeps
> expanding, because of sand baggers. Every time a new category is added, the stated attempt is to
> add a category for novices. After it fills up with sandbaggers, they add another and so on. That
> is why 4 and 5 were added and sooner or later people will demand a 6th. Soon they will complain
> that cat 5 is too tough to learn in. I hear whining about that already.

I've already done 165 Cat 5 upgrades in Nor Cal this year so I don;t think there are a lot of
people sandbagging in the Cat 5s in this area. Besides who really wants to sandbagg in a category
where there aren't any prizes. Of course the rule change this year kind of ruins that incentive to
move up quickly. Another incentive to upgrade out of 5s is the 50 rider field limit and the number
of times the Cat 5 field fills up around here. About the only time I hear complaints about Cat 5
being to hard is when some strong Mt. biker is putting in his 10 races to upgrade and is stomping
people for a while.

For Cats 3 and 4 I track rider placings and kickpeople up a category if they reach the mandatory
upgrade point total per the rules. There have been a couple of riders this year who have received
the mandatory upgrade from 4 to 3. since I keep an eye on things sandbagging isn;t a problem in the
Cat 4s and 3s around here.

 

[Warren]

In article <[email protected]>, Nick Burns <[email protected]> wrote:

> Because they are then not allowing the true novices a category of their own. That is why it keeps
> expanding, because of sand baggers. Every time a new category is added, the stated attempt is to
> add a category for novices. After it fills up with sandbaggers, they add another and so on. That
> is why 4 and 5 were added and sooner or later people will demand a 6th. Soon they will complain
> that cat 5 is too tough to learn in. I hear whining about that already.

Then they're just whiners and don't worry about them. Cat 3 is slower than 2, cat 4 is slower than
3, cat 5 is slower than 4. If cat 5 is still too fast then the person should learn a little more
about training and/or motivation because it doesn't take much of either to hang with the cat 5's.
Some people aren't tough enough to race with the 5's. They can do something else.

-WG

 

[Nick Burns]

That sounds reasonable.

"Casey Kerrigan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:060620031233054946%[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Nick Burns <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Because they are then not allowing the true novices a category of their
own.
> > That is why it keeps expanding, because of sand baggers. Every time a
new
> > category is added, the stated attempt is to add a category for novices. After it fills up with
> > sandbaggers, they add another and so on. That is
why
> > 4 and 5 were added and sooner or later people will demand a 6th. Soon
they
> > will complain that cat 5 is too tough to learn in. I hear whining about
that
> > already.
>
> I've already done 165 Cat 5 upgrades in Nor Cal this year so I don;t think there are a lot of
> people sandbagging in the Cat 5s in this area. Besides who really wants to sandbagg in a category
> where there aren't any prizes. Of course the rule change this year kind of ruins that incentive to
> move up quickly. Another incentive to upgrade out of 5s is the 50 rider field limit and the number
> of times the Cat 5 field fills up around here. About the only time I hear complaints about Cat 5
> being to hard is when some strong Mt. biker is putting in his 10 races to upgrade and is stomping
> people for a while.
>
> For Cats 3 and 4 I track rider placings and kickpeople up a category if they reach the mandatory
> upgrade point total per the rules. There have been a couple of riders this year who have received
> the mandatory upgrade from 4 to 3. since I keep an eye on things sandbagging isn;t a problem in
> the Cat 4s and 3s around here.

 

[Nick Burns]

My motivation is that I like races with huge (circa 200 riders) fields. I guess it will never be
like that again for me. If they keep the district championship at Ford Ord (or whatever it is now
called) I can start doing that again.

"warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:060620031500289025%[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Nick Burns <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Because they are then not allowing the true novices a category of their
own.
> > That is why it keeps expanding, because of sand baggers. Every time a
new
> > category is added, the stated attempt is to add a category for novices. After it fills up with
> > sandbaggers, they add another and so on. That is
why
> > 4 and 5 were added and sooner or later people will demand a 6th. Soon
they
> > will complain that cat 5 is too tough to learn in. I hear whining about
that
> > already.
>
> Then they're just whiners and don't worry about them. Cat 3 is slower than 2, cat 4 is slower than
> 3, cat 5 is slower than 4. If cat 5 is still too fast then the person should learn a little more
> about training and/or motivation because it doesn't take much of either to hang with the cat 5's.
> Some people aren't tough enough to race with the 5's. They can do something else.
>
> -WG