Just to start a discussion. What are your thoughts on combining the Masters 35/45/55 into a Masters "A" category. So there would just be Masters "A" (Cat 1/2/3) and Masters "B" (cat 3/4/5)... 55 and older can choose "B" if they desire, even if they are a cat 2 or 1. I know it's going to come up as a bylaw amendment at the November meeting.

Thoughts?

Jeff Clawson

I like this idea and would like to add a thought to Cat 1 riders showing up to race the district championships.

I welcome them showing up for these races, because obviously it raises the level of competition.

The bummer is that they only show for the district  races and I would like the Masters field to be able to enjoy better racing more often.

If a Cat 1 rider wants to compete in a masters district race then have a prerequisite of one masters race in that type of race earlier in the calendar for that season.

---

Andrew Lock

Jeff,

 I like your idea of combining the Masters A categories. Good way to increase field size. However, I would like to see the Masters B field comprised of only Cat 4 and 5 riders. Too many Cat 3 riders sandbagged this year in the B category and the Cat 3 pack sizes suffered. You know its a problem when my team mate and I only raced half the season as 3s, but still ended up as 2nd and 8th respectively in the overall Cat 3 standings at the end of the season. I realize that this was partially caused by the top 3s advancing to Cat 2, but there should have been more 3s moving up in the points standings. This didn't happen because many of the 3s raced in the Masters B category. Just a thought to keep the Cat 3 field sizes a bit larger and more competitive.

 Also, I would like to see a fee (maybe $250-500) in order to schedule a UCA event on the calendar that is refundable to the promoter if they hold the race. If they don't hold the race, they loose the fee. This will motivate promoters to be more serious about scheduleing and holding a race and minimize cancellation. That was frustrating this year. Racers plan their schedules and training programs around races and other promoters could have had the prime weekends that end up being cancelled.

Thanks for your efforts and for facilitating discussion.

Elliott

Keeping the Cat 3 field alive may be assisted by keeping the Masters minimum age limit at 40.

Masters 40+ A and 40+ B.

The 40+ will also level the field a little better for the masters that are 50+. 

 

---

Andrew Lock

I would like to see the 35+, 45+, 55+ fields remain but make the 35B field cat 4 and 5 only as Elliot proposed.

I know that by doing just an A and B field it would make the promoters lives easier and if we do decide to go that way I'd like to see it as a 40+ A and B field - if your under 40 you race your category.

I also really like Elliot's idea about the deposit to put a race on the UCA calendar - it was really frustrating last year  with all the cancellations.

 -Shane

---

"Pain is temporary, quitting lasts forever"

For those that feel strongly about the masters issue, the clubs will be voting on it at the November UCA general meeting. All the debate on this site is a lead-up to the actual vote. You must be a club in good standing and be present at the meeting to vote.

Just to let you know, the UCA DOES charge a deposit to the promoters to be included on the calendar. In the case of the events canceling this year, it seems it was worth it to the promoters to forfeit that deposit.

Jeff Clawson

Once again the Master's issue is being debated - why not the multIple Junior classes (Which are not attended) or the

multiple Women classes ( Which have sparce participation). Last year's 35B group ended up a joke - Those that

dared not ride in their age group rode  ***35 B***. I as a 55+ rider love this sport and trying to compete with a true

35+ rider would be a joke yet the UCA wants to group us together - spotting 20 years is alot to ask. I agree, as I

think the 55+ group would, that what Shane wrote should be left as A TRUE 35+, 45+, 55+ AND MAKE THE SANDBAGGERS

THAT RIDE 35+ REALLY BE CAT. 4 & 5. 

 

Henry

My only preference as for the direction of the Masters is that it entails no more than 2 races that need to be run at each event.  Thus making for better racing by creating larger packs and more efficiently scheduled and better supported races. 

55s were run with B’s pretty much the whole season, and 45 and 35 were combined more towards the end of the season.  I’m thinking that this is how things will be run from now on (regardless of field size) if the categories stay the same (raced together/scored separate) – which is totally fine as far as I’m concerned.  But I have heard some dislike of the race-together-score-separate format in the past which may make the just A & B groups more preferable.

On the Bs to include 3s or not, I agree that it would be good to try it as just  4s & 5s (for the reasons already pointed out by others).  If it sucks for whatever unforeseen reason, we can always re-add the 3s to the B group at the end of next season.

If they keep the 35+B group, it was origionally indended for CAT IIIs that may not have raced for a while to get back into it.  Not for CAT IIIs that just upgraded, or CAT IIIs that don't wont to climb with the CAT IIIs, or CAT IIIs that don't wont to go around bear lake twice.  I just don't think there is a way to exclude the sandbaggers.  According the the USAC road roolbook, you can race any Masters race that you qualify for by age.  I just think we should make fun of them...  :-)

rider rep:

For those that feel strongly about the masters issue, the clubs will be voting on it at the November UCA general meeting. All the debate on this site is a lead-up to the actual vote. You must be a club in good standing and be present at the meeting to vote.

Just to let you know, the UCA DOES charge a deposit to the promoters to be included on the calendar. In the case of the events canceling this year, it seems it was worth it to the promoters to forfeit that deposit.

Jeff Clawson

Claw - how much is the deposit? I think it needs to be large enough that a person thinks seriously before locking up a date on the UCA Calendar; $50 wouldn't be enough but I think $250 would. I would rather have less races on the calendar that I knew (or at least had a high level of confidence in) were going to happen than have every weekend filled and have to try to guess which ones would actually happen based on prior history of cancellations.

---

"Pain is temporary, quitting lasts forever"

rider rep:

Just to start a discussion. What are your thoughts on combining the Masters 35/45/55 into a Masters "A" category. So there would just be Masters "A" (Cat 1/2/3) and Masters "B" (cat 3/4/5)... 55 and older can choose "B" if they desire, even if they are a cat 2 or 1. I know it's going to come up as a bylaw amendment at the November meeting.

Thoughts?

Jeff Clawson

I guess the problem I have personally with this as a 45 y/o cat 3 is that if I were to race in the B's I'd feel like I was sandbagging but I would not be competitive in the A's against 35y/o cat 1's and 2's. I'd probably just skip masters racing and race my category which would be disappointing to me and some of my teamates who were all looking forward to switching to the masters 45+ next season (I've talked to a number of riders from various teams planning on making this move as well next season).

My best solution would be to make an amendment to make the 35+B cat 4&5 only as I stated before. Leave 35+, 45+ and 55+ intact, let the promoters at each race decide which Masters categories to combine based on entry numbers - if they only want 2 masters fields then combine the 35B's and the 55's, then the 35+ and 45+ - race us all together and score us separately. If the racers decide they have a big problem with being raced together they can always make the decision to sit up and let one group go; this happened last year at the Vegas stage race when the 35's were combined with the 3's and were not happy about it, they all just sat up and soft pedaled out of the start and let the 3's go then started racing after a gap was established.

 My .02

-Shane

 

---

"Pain is temporary, quitting lasts forever"

SHANE COULDN'T HAVE SAID IT ANY BETTER. I FEEL THE SAME WAY AS A 55+ COMPETITOR AND HAVING TO COMPETE WITH A YOUNGER GROUP. LET'S KEEP THIS REAL AND KEEP THE CLASSES AND JUST COMBINE IF NECESSARY AND SCORE SEPARATELY. I ALWAYS LOOK FORWARD TO RACING IN MY AGE GROUP NOT A GROUP 20+ YEARS YOUNGER. WHAT A WAY TO DISCOURAGE SOMEONE WHO FULLY SUPPORTS CYCLING.                       

 

THANK-YOU

HENRY

I want to ask all masters racers who have a strong opinion on this, to make sure your club representative votes at the November general meeting. This issue will most likely come up as a bylaw amendment and I would encourage everyone who might be affected by this to show up.

Jeff Clawson

Shane,

The UCA charges a $200 deposit to promoters to include an event on the calendar. 

Jeff Clawson

I am in favor of changing the Masters categories to an "A" and "B" field structure. I would rather have the age of being a master defined as 35+, but I am not totally opposed to making it 40+, as other states have...specifically Oregon. The 35+A, 45+, 55+ 35+B structure is diluting the field sizes and is burdensome to scoring and officiating....as Jeremy stated. The 35+A field is so small now that I think it is hurting that field. Who wants to race in a field of 5? It makes sense to combine those into one combined "A" field. I'm 53 this year and would welcome the additional of the 35+ to the "A" field.

I don't like the idea of ever having a race that combines fields but score seperately. It creates inequities that can ruin a race. For example, two 35+ and one 45+ get off the front of a combined 35+/45+ race. The two 35+ racers are helping keep the 45+ racer in front of the group he is competing with. In a bigger field sometimes it's not clear which fields are represented up the road. If groups have to be combined, I would much rather see them scored together. Which is essentially the "A" and "B" concept.

 If we have 55+ racers that don't feel like they can compete with the 35+B group we could create a Masters "C" group. I really don't think that the 55+ guys still wanting to race and be competitive would have any trouble racing in the 35+B group. It's more about ability than age. Remember, everyone still has the option of racing in their category.

 Regarding the cat 3's and which group they should race with. It's been my experience that most racers want to race up, that is in a category that challenges them. I think it's a perfect solution to let the 3's race is either field, at their discretion. Any sandbagging can be dealt with by the field i,e., field stategy.

 

Gary Porter

---

Gary Porter