The UCA will create a new Masters category for riders over the age of 35. The new category will be called "Masters 35+ B". This category will be an alternative Masters category open to riders over the age of 35 who are either Cat 3, 4 or 5 racers. The only restriction for this category (other than age) is that it will be closed to anyone who is either a Cat 1 or 2 racer. Riders in the "Masters 35+ B" category will probably not be able to receive USCF upgrade points (as determined by the USCF upgrade person) but will receive UCA point series points in the "Masters 35+ B" category. This category will be considered an alternative to the regular masters categories which will remain open for any riders who meet the age requirements, regardless of category. "Masters 35+ B" will be open to Cat 3, 4 and 5 riders who are over 35 years old and who do not want to race in the other three Masters categories (i.e. 35+, 45+ or 55+) for whatever reason.

Just throwing this out for discussion and insight from the more experienced vets:

 What about keeping the Cat 3s with the 1s and 2s in the A field and keeping the B field for the true newcomers?

---

I ride, I write.

Jared,

Thanks for your support of this proposal. Any comments from Cat 3 Masters?

Jeff Clawson / Mark Zimbelman 

Jeff,

 I do support it. As I hinted, it might not be perfect for a person like me, but my view comes from an older Cat 4 hoping to participate in some competitive races. I made the mistake of signing up for a Masters 35 race once when I thought it would be people similar to myself. I didn't realize at the time a couple of things -- 1: I was slow and 2: the Cat 1s and 2s in the Masters field crushed all of us Cat 4 and 5 old guys because of the experience they had over us.

 So, I think making a second masters class would indeed encourage more participation from some of the newer cyclists who happen to be older than the 25-year-old Cat 4s and 5s.

It will make racing more competitive for us, more fun for us and keep us coming back for more.

je

---

I ride, I write.

I think that if your a cat 3/Master you should race with the 1/2 Masters.  A cat 3/master already has an option of racing in "standard" cat 3 races.  How many more options does someone need? 

"Well, I'm a 44 year old cat 3 but the 3's are too young and the Masters are too fast; ah, but racing in a category I already upgraded from, just right" 

Leave the new category for guys who really, for whatever reason, are not competitive in the Masters fields.

And why should we be any different than NorCal?

I think it's important to allow cat 3s to have the option.  I raced as a 3 for several years before life considerations forced me to back off racing.  I've started to get back into it this year but found that I wasn't yet able to compete on the same level in the 35+ group.  For next year I would love the opportunity to race in a 35+ B category but ultimately I would want to get to the point where I was racing with the standard 35+ group.  I don't ever plan to upgrade to cat 2 and I think there are many who are in a similar situation as mine.

When you look at races like Lotoja and Tour of Park City that are both very challenging but are also able to attract very large fields (There were 2500 riders TURNED AWAY at Lotoja).  Those races are evidence that a very large market exists for this type of racing so if the goal is to increase turnout then it seems to be a huge opportunity.

It may reduce field sizes in the short term but if there is a focus on bringing more riders into the sport then I think it will have a very positive effect over the long term.  This age group will also bring a higher level of disposable income which is attractive to sponsors and also help them bring their kids into the sport.

 I think this is a fantastic proposal.

As a promoter I think that four Masters categories are too many, especially when the masters fields are already pretty small.  It is already difficult to find enough support/awards for the required UCA categories.  However, I think the Masters B category is a great idea, and will probably have the biggest Masters fields. The question is, do we need four Masters categories?  Could we get along without the 45+ category?  Have a 35+, 55+, and a Masters B.

You took the words out my keyboard.  This is even a better idea (although I am sure some 45+ will disagree) to combine the eight 35+ riders who routinely show up and the just as strong 45's into one race and have an open Masters B that is a non-scoring UCA event that the disenfranchised masters cat 3 can race.  The 35+ and 45+ should really be combined any way given the field size of the 35's. 

Didn't Chuck poke the bear this past summer with a similar observation/suggestion?

 

John 

Having promoted many races in the past I completely understand the concern.  My feeling regarding awards/prizes is that expectations of those for Masters categories are generally low.  Masters race for fitness and bragging rights, not for a $20, 10th place prize.

If adding this category has the long term result of attracting new riders who are attractive to potential sponsors then the other things will take care of themselves.  To make that happen promoters just need to focus using their limited resources to most effectively provide a good experience for the riders.

 

First - I like this proposal and think it will be great for racing in the area. 

I agree that we shouldn't be adding more catgories, but I don't see any great solution.  If we combined 35+ and 45+, there's still the 55+ race (which is normally around 5 guys) to run and support.  No matter how the masters are reorganized, adding Masters B will require three seperate mens masters races (younger and older 'A' races and a B race).   And the 55+ are usually run with the 45+ already. 

However, adding Masters B will make the 45+ group even more elitest and 55+ers may tend to race in the B group - leaving even less (than very few) regular 55+ racers.  I could be wrong - 55+ers out there please comment.  But is that bad?  If a 55+er can hang with the 45+ 'A' group then they deserve the recognition, yes?

What I think would be cool for the masters groups is 35+, 50+ and Masters B.  But I really don't see it happening or elimintating any of the Masters groups at this point.

Thanks a lot for all the feedback. As a courtesy, it would help if you can sign your name so we know who we are responding to.

A couple of points: The current class structure (35/45/55+) aligns with the USA Cycling masters classes and we receive national ranking points in those categories. Also, the writers of this proposal are reluctant to propose taking away anyone's classification without their permission. That is not part of this proposal.

The hope is the new class would be popular, which should bring more revenue to the UCA and the promoters. Awards are relatively cheap if the numbers are there to support a class. The promoter still has the option to combine small classes—as it has always been.

As the masters B riders gain experience, they would logically advance to the "regular" masters classes, thus the new class would be a "feeder" class for the masters categories. This would be an aid to increasing field sizes in those categories.

If you feel strongly about this proposal—and if you are a masters racer—let your club president know how you stand on this proposal. The same proposal lost by one vote last year at the UCA meeting.

Thanks everyone,

Jeff Clawson

I'm pleased that the subject has been revisited. I do not agree with the the proposal of adding a third masters category as the proposal fails the test criteria of maximizing participation while optimizing competition, and further the proposal does not take into account the extra cost in time and expense to officials and promoters. We vetted this idea last summer.

In my opinion a masters open call it what you want ((A) or (35+) or (35+ 123)) and B maximizes participation and competition in seasoned and still fit masters racing and gives an opportunity to participate and be competitive to seasoned (maybe well done) old and now slow masters or up and coming masters. Participants self-determine which group in which to participate. Even for one-days as I would not mind an exceptionally fit NORBA licensed rider showing up and giving him the opportunity to school us all.

Masters group 1 riders at all age levels should welcome the longer distances and increased competition.

Masters group 2 should benefit from greater parity in ability level and the distances ought to be more reflective as well.

The down side of only two groups in this market is that Bountiful and Canyon could field a dozen or more riders each in a masters group 1 field. That's a problem in that it has the potential to promote negative racing. After thinking about this consequence, I believe that it would sort it out on it's own. Free-lance riders can tactically play off any situation. Bountiful and Canyon fielded large representation in the fields last year but that didn't result in domination. In fact the free lancers, did pretty well.

Further, the large teams should have dominated. The fact that they didn't suggests suggests that those teams might benefit from being more aggressive, which I encourage. Consequentially, aggressive large teams will make the racing more difficult for the free-lancers and make us all even fitter and faster. 

Adding a masters B likely will have the affect of reducing the field size in 35+ racing even further. Remember the Gate City Grind, it had 5, count them on one hand, participants! Garden creek gap had like eleven 35+ participants! I would like the advocates of the current proposal explain to me how adding a masters B would have increase participation and competition among the 35+ at last years Garden Creek Gap.

I would recommend that a Masters group 2 be combined with age graded 55+ at the discretion of the promoter and upon consent from each group.

At the meeting the club I represent will propose to amend the legislation to reflect two masters groups.

 

 

 

---

Chuckles
801-699-1039

As a relative newcomer to the Utah racing scene I believe any attempt to grow and develop the sport is a good thing. With the masters categories interest increasing it only makes sense to look at the growth aspect and see where those ideas can be inserted and goals acheived.

The LOTOJA mentality of signing up and doing a "race" has attracted an unbelievable amount of cyclists from all backgrounds and levels of experience, albeit somewhat low exposure to USAC mass start events. If UCA could somehow tap into this market and gain some of that enthusiasm and spirit that would be a success. Of course the downside of all this discussion is the first impression of diluting an already low turnout in some of the masters races. Coming from arguably the largest concentration of liscensed racers- Northern California and New England/Northeast it is easy to look at those districts and see how if you took out 20-25% of a field you could still have depth of up to 40-75 starters in some races. That is probably why they have taken a look at their masters fields in the past and broke them up to foster development- Cat 1/2/3 and Cat 4/5, even some Cat 1/2 masters races have been run.

 So  back to the question at hand. Maybe a way is to implement an alternative category B category with it's own upgrade rules such a involuntary upgrades to disuade sandbagging, result recognitions, prize lists based on participation (wouldn't that be a novel approach for all categories), minimum fields sizes that would combine with the other masters fields.

 Remember that as cyclists we had to learn by experience. It's not always a numbers game of watts, thresholds, and interval times. Although sometimes those learning curves can be steep, hopefully you can come away from a race with a little more information and exposure that you can use in the next one. From my own experience, racing in Nor Cal as an elite cyclist in the 90's, I saw more broom wagons than podiums, but the experience I gained from those sufferfests and drummings help shape me and gave me the perspective I have today-respect for racing.

-John McKone

I agree with McWin, I am for a Masters 35+ B category. I think that there are LOTOJA racers out there that would like to race other guys that lack the experience, and probably the time constraints to race a lot... and that is what it takes to be competitive in M35+, 45+, 55+.

 The question is, should it be open to 3's, 4's and 5's or just 4's and 5's. I would bet that most 3's would do M35+, 45+ and 55+ except for some that haven't been training, and / or racing, and want to get back into it. Therefore the McCone "sandbagger policy" would correct that (really problably not a big issue).

 As mentioned before the only fields that this would impact would be M35+ and maybe M55+. And even there, for the riders who are competitive, its not an issue to just have more riders line up if they are shot off on the first acceleration. Why don't we give it a try this year with a couple of larger races single day races, if the promotors are ok with it of course... why not it could bring in more cash, short and long term with just one more category. And if wheel cars are a problem, no wheel cars for the B's, no worries, they ride everyday without wheelcars already.

 Not to put the cart before the horse... logitically speaking we need-

1. To amend the bylaws to have more time to look into this, if we want to try it this year.

2. Market this well within the racing community from all (current categorized racers all have friends they could recommend this category to who may have shown some interest, as well as teams, clubs, bike shops, Cycling Utah and even at the at the crit series events.

 I agree with McCone in that it may be beneficial in increasing the pool of racers locally, and as always, some will move up and become the Cowleys, Louders, Schaeffers,  Zimblemans and Claws (and many more who started racing at later ages) who could increase the already competitive masters fields.

 That's all I have to give, my brain is smokin' from overuse.

Thanks to Claw and Mark for posting and everyone elses ideas.  When trying something new... market, test and take baby steps... no worries.

two more cents from this corner:

 I do not believe a Masters B field will dilute from the Masters 35/45 field. Rather, I think it will attract the older Cat 5 and Cat 4 racers who want to race, but are intimidated by the current Masters 35 and Masters 45 crowd.

 I think one big reasons the current masters fields are sometimes small is because many people like me -- a 40-year-old guy new to the sport -- know there is no chance of even competiting for a top 10 place against Zimbleman, Schaeffer, Allen, Hanseen, Bilodeau, etc. We want to someday race with you guys, but we stick with the Cat 5 group for a year or more just to get experience and relatively competitive fields until we get better. Yet, the Cat 4 and 5 fields are often dominated by the young newbies and us old newbies get dropped quicly there, too.

A Masters B field might be a way to keep some of us older newbies from getting discouraged.

---

I ride, I write.