31 replies to this topic

[dolo]

You've seen the bumper stickers: "Don't mess with Texas!"

Well they don't mess around in Texas when it comes to upgrading racers to the next class.  Seems there was a problem with "Sandbaggers" sitting in a class for a lifetime and they decided to do something about it this racing season.
http://www.tmbra.org...pic.php?t=11965

TMBRA does have separate spring and fall series to avoid the summer heat.  They are about to complete their spring season so these upgrades were based on the current series results.

This is the original post from the TMBRA forum posted in April:
http://www.tmbra.org...der=asc&start=0

Pretty interesting reading the comments and note that the racers were not catted up until they had their series position locked in their current category.

[rigrider]

At least they posted the USAC rules for upgrade requirements:

Go to USA Cycling website and look under member resources. Then you will see rule book under that menu.

This may be what you are looking for...

1D6. Mountain Bike Upgrades
(a) Riders may advance as quickly as they wish up to category 2. However, once a rider has upgraded, he or she will not be permitted to downgrade to a less difficult category without making a formal request to USA Cycling. The upgrading of categories will be noted on the racing license by USA Cycling. The USA Cycling Official at the event may record the upgrade of a rider to Category 2. The official will then contact the USA Cycling Regional Coordinator to record the change. A rider may also contact USA Cycling by email, in writing, or online to change categories.
(b)Category 3 racers must move to Category 2 after placing in the top five in five races. Failure to do so may result in license suspension.
© Category 2 riders may move up to Category 1 after two top five finishes by presenting an upgrade request and a resume to USA Cycling.
(d) Category 2 riders must advance to Category 1 after placing in the top five in five races. Failure to do so may result in license suspension.

27
For upgrading purposes, classes must consist of the following competitors:
Class Men Women
Junior 15-18 10 5
Senior 15 10
Master age 30-39 15 10
Master age 40-49 10 5
Master age 50+ 5 5
For races with 5 or fewer competitors, only the top finisher will count for upgrading. For races with 6 to 10 competitors, only the top three finishers will count for upgrading. Upgrades will be based on a rider's placings in his category over a twelve month period.

Edited by rigrider, 17 May 2012 - 05:22 AM.

[rich pierce]

Pretty funny, if I understand those rules, if there were just 5  Cat 2 masters 50+ racers who raced each other for 5 races, each would have placed in the top 5 for 5 races and they would all have to cat up.

[dolo]

That's the way I'm reading it also, although the Cat 2 50+ class is looking healthy in the east series first two races: 15 at Lost valley, and 13 at Greensfielder.

West had 13 Cat 2 50+ at River Trail, only 3 at OMBA, and 10 at Wilson.  2 of the 3 races on the west side were not local to the KC area and required 100+ miles of driving for most racers.  It's 300 to Wilson from my house, but worth every mile for those sweet trails.

Actually, it is unfortunate to say that none of the most popular trails in the KC area are hosting a race this year.  As you know Rich, promoting races is no easy task and some of the western promoters are taking a break.  UFD did add a race at Wyandotte trails so that will be more local.  I'll be interested to see how that draws in the KC area.  Landahl is still by far the most popular race destination in KC.  Swope has added some new sections this year that are more flow and less technical so they compliment what is already there to provide a nice loop.  No races there this year though.

[shock-a-sha]

I believe with 5 or fewer racers in a given category only the top spot qualifies for the upgrade.

For upgrading purposes, classes must consist of the following competitors:
Class Men Women
Junior 15-18 10 5
Senior 15 10
Master age 30-39 15 10
Master age 40-49 10 5
Master age 50+ 5 5
For races with 5 or fewer competitors, only the top finisher will count for upgrading. For races with 6 to 10 competitors, only the top three finishers will count for upgrading. Upgrades will be based on a rider's placings in his category over a twelve month period.

[sub-lt]

Sorry to bring this up again, but I'm re-reading it after the race Saturday, where there were so many fast CAT2's, which was great, but which got me started thinking about next year.  Since there is the UFD points competition for the series for the year, I know it's been said we don't have to Cat up until the following season, which should mean there'll be more racers in CAT1 next year (since hopefully all of them will keep racing once they have to Cat up).

But the rules seem to be working off of age categories, whereas a lot of the race prizes and organizers lean towards overall places (though results are always posted by age-group), which is fine either way, but leads me to the question -- am I forced to cat up for next year once I've placed top 5 in my age-group at least 5 times, even though I've only placed top 5 in Cat2 a couple of times? (And even if I haven't placed top 5 overall in at least 5 by the end of the season, would everyone be better off if I made the request to USAC and Catted up as a slow Cat1 rather than a fast(er) Cat2?!?)

Either way, I enjoy the comradery before and after, along with the serious competition on the course, more than points or classes, and I don't ever wanna be that shmuck everyone wishes would cat up.  But placing is cool too!

Any thoughts?  

[tankrider]

We do it a little differently here. Texas may have wonderful documentation and lists, but we have Struckman and his bullhorn.

[dolo]

See "Rigriders" post above.  You can request an upgrade but don't have to cat up until you meet the criteria for placing in top 5 in your category/class.  Note the part about  "Upgrades will be based on a rider's placings in his category over a twelve month period. "  Check the results for 2011 and 2012 and you already have racers that are still racing down that have met the criteria to be catted up.  I think some are getting a courtesy to stay in the class for the remainder of the series year as they are competing for a place in their respective category and class.  

My hats off off to Kent Jones for stepping up and upgrading to Cat 1 in the 50+.  Kent has made the jump and is much faster as a result of the training and his adaptation to the increased speed and distance.  When he moved up he left a podium spot for an aspiring Cat 2 50+, now some of the guys standing on those podium spots need to follow his lead.  No, Tom Albert is getting older but is still plenty fast.  Grand Geezer will always be fast cause he's a competitor and suffers better than the average 60+ guy, and heaven forbid if John Mathews comes out of his cyclical hibernation and remembers that he is a "half century" now!

[rhadrj]

My opinion is we can debate this topic forever without any real solution.  The issues surround the grey area that much of this topic falls and someone can argue all sides.  I am a huge proponent of the KISS method.  I don't think the UFD Promoters want to be the police.  Most of us are educated adults and can easily police ourselves.  When we cannot, then promoter of that current race will have to make those decisions if we are made aware of them prior to the race.    

Again this is a never ending debate - I personally just think once you've had some success, move on and continue to challenge yourself.  Staying in your current category is never going to make you faster.   Chasing faster guys/girls will and that is what we all do this for to start with.  At least I do.

[mjs]

I think people not complaining on this website and talking face to face would solve 99% of this.  Maybe set an example and cat up early, without actually winning a race...

Matt

[mikebobelak]

It also helps if promoters / races actually turn in race results to USA Cycling... Not all are

[rich pierce]

MTBers are a little more flexible with rules generally and just want things to work and be competitive.  I've always liked the idea of using placings within the entire category field as an index of who should move up or move down. And not just the placing but the time.  Also basing these things on a season's results makes a lot of sense instead of getting excited about someone's performance after one race (Eric Pirtle an obvious exception- think he did and won one race as a Sport racer then podiumed next week as an Expert- there's nothing like talent and training combined).  Some racers would place far differently at Castlewood if the course included Lone Wolf and Cardiac climbs than on a Love/Rollercoaster course.  Some folks race whenever they can and others, mostly when the race course favors their strengths.

[mssrsmth]

I'll chime in... after having some good cat 2 results last year but not enough for a mandatory move up, i contacted usac for input. They said i could petition and would receive cat 1 but it wasn't required. I also moved up in age group which to a much faster group of racers. I also do some regional races and some out west.  I can say with experience that a cat 2 race in the Midwest is a far cry from a cat 2 race up north or out west.  This doesn't mean that i shouldn't cat up when fitness and results dictate it but there is merit to consideration of where we fit in as racers across the country.

[dolo]

All very good comments, but:
UFD is sanctioned under USA Cycling and USA Cycling has set standards for upgrades.  It is really not a grey area.  A racer places X amount of times in his/her category/class and they move up or risk having their license suspended/revoked.  Common sense and regional competition are not addressed in the rule book and if the upgrades are for regional racers that never travel and race nationals or larger more competitive events, I guess it doesn't matter.  The rule book does not have a special chapter for weighing the value of regional competition say in Colorado vs. North Carolina.  We have some racers from the Midwest that have left the area and hold their own just fine.  You can't just cut and paste the rule book to fit your "perfect local race scenario!"  It's kinda like driving and breaking the speed limit.  When the patrol pulls you over for 10 over and you argue that in Kansas they let you drive 15 over.  Good luck with that.

Unless the UFD disconnects from USA Cycling, self insures, writes their own rule book, the criteria is set!  I respect the views of other racers and literally "bow down" to Bob Arnold for his tireless and unselfish dedication to mountain bike racing in the Midwest, but I get amused by some of the comments about how the competition should be structured.  Especially by riders that rarely race their bikes or those that just show up and have no intention of ever actually racing at the front.  As far as I'm concerned there are two kinds of riders that pay an entry fee to race:  "participants and then there are racers."  The entry fee is the same for both, but their goals are totally different.
Now let's try this again:
Go here for USA Cycling Rule Book:
http://www.usacyclin...g-rule-book.htm
Click on Chapter 1, scroll down to pages 26/27, see  rule 1D6.  Mountain Bike Upgrades
Be sure to let me know if you see a special asterisk that allows any sanctioned MTB group or licensed rider to deviate from the rules.

Now last, look at the Cat 1 results from the last X amount of races.  Count the number of racers in each class.  Why is that?  Now look at the Cat 2 results, and yes I get it, this is where the bulk of the racers should be and we want to continue to see growth in that class and encourage new riders to race in the 3's to eventually move up.  In a perfect world it should look like a "bell curve" instead of a huge bulge in the middle and sudden drop off a precipitous cliff!!  Wouldn't it be nice if we paid our taxes like we consider upgrades?  Do you want to be in the tax bracket that pays no tax, the one that pays some tax, or the one that takes half of what you earn?  Wouldn't that be nice?

I've shared my view more than enough.  No more rants from me on this topic.  I'm going to go out and use my time in a more constructive way, like heading out to our local trail system and building some more new single track so we will have another venue to race on in the future.  It will roll well for Cat 1's, 2's, and 3's.  Whatever you choose to be!

[rich pierce]

Good points, Doug, because they are facts!  Indisputable.  What we don't have is a board of people who track the placings in such a way as to tally the placings that count toward an upgrade.  It's not higher math but not as simple as counting top 5 finishes, because in a field with 5 racers, only the top finisher gets an "upgrade point" and when there are 6-10, the top 3 get an upgrade point, etc, and this varies by age class etc.  Bob has communicated he doesn't want to do it personally and I don't blame him a bit.  Further complicating matters is that many race results don't end up in USA Cycling's results sections in a timely fashion, and some never make it.  At least looking at my mediocre results over the years, there are a lot of MTB races missing.  So taking on this job of monitoring results for mandatory upgrades is recognizably opening oneself up to a lot of complaining by people.  "Joe finished second in a race in Colorado when he was on vacation but it never got reported!  He should be racing cat 1 NOW!"  On the upside, if someone or some group was willing to sit down and go over results together once a month for Missouri MTB racers, we could point to the fact that we have a process and are following the rules.

For the sake of discussion: When we race as a mass start in cat 2 and awards are handed out to the top finishers overall, do you think a fella's placing in the age brackets should count toward upgrade?  (I said fellas, gals because we don;t have age categories in women's fields yet- but would love to have enough women racers to make that happen!)

Edited by rich pierce, 17 July 2012 - 09:04 AM.