Race Report(s): Northampton Cycle-Smart International cat 3 2009

As always the photos are courtesy of my lovely wife

I went in to NoHo feeling good. This was one of my "A" weekends, so I had built my training around being fit and rested for these races.

There were a number of goals for this season and most of them revolved around beating friends who have consistently bested my in the past. The list and results are as follows:

1. Rosey-beaten at Green Mountain Cyclocross/VT Verge (and others)
2. Yash--Green Mt.
3. Sebastien Dumont--Results swing back and forth
4. Cary Fridfich--New Gloucester--Both Days
5. Colin Holmes Reuter--10/18/09 Wednesday Night SuperPrestige (obviously, this isn't a sanctioned event, but I take what I can get)
6. PVB--10/18/09 SuperPrestige
7. Colin Holmes Murphy--Never

As you can see, prior to this race weekend, I had accomplished most of my goals for the season, including podiuming in a Verge race (twice). But Murphy hung out there. Colin has been smoking me so badly that he doesn't even show up as a rival on my crossresults.com page.

The Racing--Day 1

I got there early, warmed up and thoroughly inspected the course. I was confident that I was going to put forth my best effort.

The race was relatively uneventful. It started fast, I was near the front and stayed there. Riders attacked and few got away. On the first or second lap, I found myself gaining on CHM.



I caught him on the run up and then rode his wheel for a few turns, hesitant to throw down the gauntlet with so many laps remaining.




Soon, it became obvious that I would travel faster if I took the initiative in the corners and handled the rooty sections with an unobstructed line.

I waited for Holmes to take a corner wide. I turned a tighter radius while carrying more speed. I accelerated before Holmes was able to. I got a gap.

Photo courtesy of Josh Garlich

Eventually, I saw Holmes and Rosey start working together a few seconds back. This scared me.

Sometime near the end of the race, I was riding with Evan Huff. God damn it. I have been beaten in the last lap of uncountable cross races by this dude. Usually by less then 3 seconds, sometimes 10ths of seconds. He is becoming my white whale. He bested me for the last paying spot, 5th to my 6th.

I held off Murphy. Sad though it is, this is currently the highlight of my season.

Overall a good day.

Day 2-

With Murphy bested and Cary in the Verge leader's jersey, my goals for the race should have been minimal. But during preride/inspection, I began to believe that it was my day. I got that nervous feeling that you get when you can taste victory. Anyone who has ever targeted an event and then been confident about their chances of a really good result knows the feeling I mean.

Again, I was in the top 10 in the prologue loop. The pace was super high. Attacks were coming thick even before we entered the first lap. It was my day. After Chris Laflamme had settled into the front of the lead group, setting a high pace, I attacked the straight away leading to the sandpit.

I entered the sandpit alone with a small gap. I had ridden into the pit "step through" style fully intending to dismount with momentum and run the sand instead of risking a crash and a first lap pileup. Others behind me rode the sand faster than I was able to dismount/run/remount. My attack was absorbed and answered within 30 seconds of my initiating it.

I was still in the lead group, but taking on water. I watched Huff, Laflamme and Murphy ride away from me, as if in slow motion. It wasn't dramatic, a gap just opened and grew. I could have slayed myself to stay with them...but I chose to stay back. It was still lap one and many matches were being burned. I figured that those dudes were racing like fools. They all ended on the podium.

The rest of my race was tame. I'd get in a group, ride wheels in the straights and get in front on the upper deck. I maintained position. The weight of the Verge leader's jersey had pulled Cary back. I could see him chasing on opposing sections. Again, Cary is no joke. He kept me honest in the corners, helped me keep the hammer down.

On the last lap, I was in a group with Mike Wissell, James Morrison, and a local named Jeremy, all solidly inside the top ten. On the upper deck, I gapped them by taking a good line through the roots.

I went super fast down the launch ramp and came into the S turn after the RR tracks too hot.





I made the first corner but my line made it impossible to negotiate the second. I tried to cut hard left to correct. I had a full speed crash. While my file treads gave way easily, I beleive that I would have crashed with any tires. The impact was loud enough that me and my bike slid so far that people started running over. Friends went to get my wife. Morrison asked me if I was OK as he passed, the tone of his voice implying that he believed that I wasn't.

I got up, pissed. I wasn't hurt. But I was pumped full of adrenaline and annoyed about loosing spots. I passed Wissell in the next set of corners and got on Jeremy's wheel. I attacked him, but he countered and wouldn't let me get the advantage. Jeremy rode me off his wheel and outsprinted me for 6th. Morrison was out of sight.

7th is a great result. But it wasn't my day. I have no scratches, cuts, bruises, or marks as a result of my last lap crash. Maybe it was my day.

Race Report: Green Mountain Cyclocross Weekend Verge 2008 Cat 3

All photos are courtesy of my lovely wife over at Pedal Power Photography.

Saturday's race saw sunny and warm weather and a dry grassy course. Sunday was misty and damp, with course conditions deteriorating quickly.

I got to the starting line of Saturday's race feeling amped. I was rested and ready. I had a good deep warm up. I was quite nervous since I felt confident that I would earn a respectable result.

I had a lofty goal for the 2009 season: beat my friend Rosey in any fair race (no mishaps or mechanicals). I have never been able best him in any cyclocross race. Every time that I have tried, I have crashed or ended up blown apart and limping in for the last few laps.

Rosey got the hole shot. He was 15 seconds ahead of me within the first 30 seconds of racing. I was in OK position after the first climb and the initial corner. Perhaps 20th. I raced smart and remained within my abilities. I have been finding that it is better for me to burn matches to remain near the front of the race in the first lap, but not to try to lead the race. My new riding cyclocross style is to settle in and reel riders in over the course instead of killing myself to ride top 10 only to detonate and slide back.

Most of my first lap was uneventful. Little shoving and jostling. Almost no words exchanged. I made a few passes. Corey Lowe came blowing by me about midway through the lap. I briefly considered getting on his wheel, since he usually finishes a few places ahead of me, but he was pushing a pace that would have left me destroyed.

There was a slight divot or gutter in the corner leading into the barriers. Going into the barriers I was about 10th. I unclipped and tried to ride into the barriers standing on my pedal. I was coming in too hot and the gutter jostled my bike into a skid; I immediately went down. I was able to get up quickly, run the barriers, and remount as if nothing had happened, but when I remounted, my chain was derailed, which required me to dismount awkwardly and put it back on. I slipped a few places and lost about 30 seconds.

Angered, I rode fast. I passed people in corners while they rode their squealing brakes. The sound of grass ripping accompanied me as I chucked my pedals as I pedalled through sweeping corners.

When I got to the the runup/rideup, my competitor's were running feebly. After mountain biking for the entire summer, I was easily able to ride over the three logs that prevented road cyclists from riding this section. Every time that I crested the top of this climb, I took back a little time on the people ahead of me or further shut the door on the people behind.

The rest of my race was fairly standard. I suffered. I put in efforts to catch riders ahead of me. I wanted to drop out. I prayed for the bell every time that I came through the start finish.

I made it a point to dose my efforts in the parts of the course where it would yield me the most speed. For instance, instead of blowing my wad on the climb leading into the rideup only to scrub all that speed on the off camber 90 degree turn going into it. I eased back a little shifted into the appropriate climbing/clambering gear and put in a huge burst over the logs.

In the last two laps, I reeled in a lots of riders. All through the race, my teammates had been calling out my position on the road to me when I crested the 3 log ride up. Steadily I went from 17th to 15th to 13th to 11th to solidly inside the top ten. I reeled in Rosey. I didn't say anything as I passed him. He looked hurt.





Taking the hole shot often does not pay.

I also reeled in Mike Wissell of Back Bay. At the Hodges Village Dam MTB race this summer, my A race of the mtb season, he put over 5 minutes into me (I rode a good race too!). So passing Wissell was a highlight of Saturday (and Sunday's) race.

I finished 7th. My good friend Cary





podiumed and Rosey hung on for 10th. The wife was on the podium in her race. My 2009 nemesis/friend Sebastien Dumont bested me with a 5th place result.

On another note, cat 3's who finished near the back of the race were prematurely pulled. The Verge organizers have decided to run the junior's race at the same time as the cat 3's, giving the juniors a 2 minute head start. When the juniors were "lapping" slower cat 3's, the officials were pulling the cat 3's so that the juniors could have a "clean" finish. While I don't begrudge the junior's their race, it is unfair to curtail the race of someone who has paid good money to race because they have been caught by another field that started minutes ahead of them.

I know that many cat 3's were quite upset that they were pulled. From a solid source, I heard that these disgruntled riders vented their rage on unrepentant sandbagger, Brian Wilichoski by booing him and yelling insults as he crossed the line in first place.

Furthermore, I caught junior riders all through my race, as did the leaders of my race. I had to negotiate passing them, as did the leaders. The juniors were polite and made room, but nonetheless, they were on the course at the same time that I was. The presence of these juniors could have also interfered with our finish, but no one (me included) would suggest pulling them of the course.

Sorry for my digression. Day one was a success. I felt that I rode well. Obviously, I am upset about my crash and the fact that I lost 30-45 seconds to it, but overall, the race went well and yielded a better result than I would have predicted for myself beforehand.

Check back for photos and a race report from day two.

Artificially Beefing Up Elite Fields: Why?

Both mountain biking and the Verge series have taken steps to allow (read force) lower category riders to race as pro and elites respectively.

Mountain bike categories changed this year, which effectively combined the former semi pro category with the pro category. Squirtgunshow (1, 2, 3) has done a great job of pointing out the various follies in the new scheme, so I won't belabor the point.

Verge had split the 2/3 field so that 3's race alone, while cat 2's will now race with elites. For 2's this is a mixed blessing. Some 2's are excited about racing elite cyclocross, some are upset that they will be deprived of thier chance to shine in the B's this year (yes there are non-sandbagging 2's who would have done well this year) and others are indifferent or have not formed an opinion. Still other 2's are upset about the huge race fee increase that they will incur now that they race with the elites ($45 per race plus they need to purchase a $90 UCI license, ouch!).

In thinking about and discussing the various advantages and disadvantages of the artificial influx of elite riders in both New England cyclocross (with 14 races scheduled for 2009, we can effectively say that the Verge series is NE CX) and mountain biking, I have been forced to question both the motivation and the wisdom of the schemes.

Firstly does it make sense to effectively upgrade your semi pros to pro or your cat 2's to cat 1? My argument would be that while this may be good for individuals with aspirations of becoming pros or elites, this is not so good for everyone else.

I am now a 3. Early indicators point to me having a decent cross season in 2009. But will I upgrade to 2 if I get some decent results? No. I have a job, friends, a wife and other interests that I care about. At 37 years of age, I am not looking to become a elite rider. So if I get a few decent results, I may end up in the untenable situation where I can either sandbag in the 3's or upgrade and be lapped by Trebon and pulled before the race is halfway over. Both situations suck. I use myself as an example because I know that there are lots of people in New England who are in the same boat. There is also that real possiblity that my results won't qualify me for an upgrade, which would suck on one hand but also eliminate the dilemna.

Others have argued that Verge is trying to cultivate US elites so that they can be competitive in worldwide competition. How the hell does filling the elite field with cat 2's make cat 1's faster or more competitive? Personally, I have never gotten faster by riding with riders who were slower than or less skilled than me.

After listening to various thinkers on the topic and thinking deeply about it (it is summer and I am a teacher, so I have time to burn), I have concluded that both the mtb and the CX "upgrades" have the same goal: create a sense that the respective disciplines are thriving. It just looks bad when your elite races are poorly attended and when no one sticks around to watch them. Obviously, this has not been a problem at big races like Gloucester. But at many UCI races feilds are small (1,2,3)and lower category riders often chose to go home rather than watch elite race.

So the upgrading of semi pros in mtb and cat 2's in cx will make the pro and elite fields look bigger on paper. Maybe this will bring in sponsors or give organizers some traction with the UCI.

But I have to ask a question: other than the 25 guys actually racing for UCI points, does anyone really care about the UCI points? I ask this question in all seriousness. I know that I don't care. And watching Johnson or Trebon beat 60 guys instead of 25 won't make the race any more exciting to watch.

As others have noted, there are serious problems with both the new accomadations for cat 4's and for lower category women.

It's almost as if Verge feels like it is doing us a favor by allowing us lowly lower category riders to race. But I ask, where would the Verge series be if it wasn't for our entry fees? Would there even be a series? And outside of us (cyclocross racers) who in the US gives a shit about elite cyclocross racing? Answer: no one. Beefing up the elite feild (or pro feild) with lower category riders is not going to increase the popularity of the sport.

Maybe there is something else going on and I just don't get it (I am serious here). If you will be kind enough to explain...

Creeping Fees in Competitive Cycling: An Economics Lesson.

Race fees are rising steadily. One expects race fees to rise over time due to inflation. In some cases the costs associated with putting on a race also rise, requiring promoters to increase race fees to meet basic expenses. These price increases are natural and perfectly acceptable. While we may complain that races no longer cost $15, for the most part, our salaries keep pace with inflationary pressures, allowing us to pay the increased race fees without having to make sacrifices in other areas.

But this season there has been a couple of trends that I would like to note and discuss. First, many race fees have risen significantly this year. Second, there appears to be less people registering for races this season. Third, the overall economy is contracting. My main question is: How do these trends interact? Do the former two trends feed each other or are they merely correlated without causation one way or the other? And how does the overall contraction in the economy affect both of these trends in competitive cycling?

While economic indicators point to our recession ending in the near future, I don't think that anyone would argue that our economy is not faltering. Many of us have accepted wage freezes, no bonuses, reduced hours or pay decreases. Some of us have found ourselves laid off and unemployed. There are people losing their homes. Furthermore, many people are scared of one or more of these things happening.

Curtailing discretionary spending is a logical reaction to the economic downturn. Personally, I am spending less money on non essential items and I have been streamlining my household expenses in an effort to keep precious dollars set aside for the rainy days (if you didn't know, I spent 6 months unemployed last year and am currently looking for a position for the fall).

My 2009 racing budget is less than half of previous years'. I am not traveling as far for races and I am avoiding stage races and expensive one day events. Instead of racing 2 days a weekend, I only race one.

I have made some concessions in equipment as well; I am racing on less expensive rubber, my bartape is changed less frequently, I patch tubes, cleats remain unchanged until really worn out, I buy lower level chains and cassettes and I use generic cables and reuse cable housing.

For 90% of us, race fees are a purely discretionary expense. As such race fees are elastic, meaning that increases in race prices will cause consumers to spend less on them. Of course we can note some examples that defy the law of elasticity, such as The Tour or the Battenkill, which climbed to $45+ a head in 2009 and still had over 1500 registrants. For the most part, as racers find less money in their pockets and as race fees rise, racers will either chose to race less or will seek out races with more reasonable fees.

Many promoters fail to understand this simple law. Instead of lowering fees, or at least holding them steady, in the face of a recession, they have chosen to raise fees to make up for the income that has been lost from lower attendance at races. This will not work. In the case of unique events such as Battenkill, race fees appear to be inelastic; racers will pay ever increasing amounts of money to participate in this unique race. Though I suspect that at some point Battenkill's promoter will raise fees high enough to figure out exactly how elastic or inelastic race fees are.

Promoters of less unique events have also raised fees. Notably, the 2009 Verge races are becoming exorbitant. For cat 4's there it costs $30 for 30 minutes of racing and it pays MEDALS 3 deep. Cat 3's get a payout 0f $250 5 deep, but they will pay $35 for 45 minutes. Cat 2's, who now race with the UCI elites (which requires the purchase of a $90 UCI license that expires on 12/31/09) now will pay $45 for the privilege of getting lapped. Sure there is a $2171 payout that goes 25 deep, but I have seen $17 pay envelopes for people who finished "in the money" at UCI races.

Though it may seem like it, I have not put this post up to merely complain about race fees. I am arguing that increasing race fees will not bring more revenue to promoters. In fact, in many cases, the increased race fees will cause promoters to get less revenue than they would have if the fee was kept lower, as many racers choose to go to a training race or on a group ride instead of spending precious dollars on race fees.

If you increase the race fee by 20% and lose 20% of your racers, you lose 4% of your revenue. For example: if you brought in $100 charging 100 racers a $1 race fee and you increased the fee to $1.2 and only 80 racers came, you'd take in $96. Even worse, you'd probably still have alienated some of the racers who still chose to show up.

A good example of this trend has been the New England Velodrome, which I frequent. In 2007 and 2008, the race fee was $10 and bicycle rental was $2. With transportation from Boston, the whole experience was under $20. In 2008 increased gas prices and the beginnings of the recession decreased attendance at the velodrome.

The management responded by raising the race fee to $15 and bringing bicycle rental to $5 (though they also replaced the grouchy curmudgeon who was running the rental area with a great Goguen kid [maybe Manny?], which is probably worth the price increase). With gas and fees, the NEV now costs almost $30, depending on what kind of vehicle you are driving.

NEV attendance has been sparse in 2009. This morning, I just received an email informing me that race fees will increase to $20 in August in order to cover USAC sanctioning of events. I am going on record to note that USAC sanctioning will not increase track attendance. In fact, I know that my wife and I are unable to pay this race fee on top of our other cycling expenses. From asking around, I know that other riders have largely abandoned track racing at least partially due to price increases. The higher fee will definitely exacerbate this problem.

Bicycle racing is expensive. Even before you pay a race fee, you've dropped $1000's or even $10,000's on equipment and spent countless hours training. Oftentimes transportation costs outstrip race fees. For many years, race fees were an afterthought. But when it starts to cost $75-95 (I include Bikereg.com fees in my accounting) in race fees for a Verge weekend, one starts scratching their head and wondering if its worth it.

Just to put the fees in perspective, my perspective, teachers make about $50,000 a year (my salary is a mandated by contract and is a matter of public record, so I don't feel strange discussing it). After taxes, retirement, health and related expenses I take home about $700 a week. More than 10% of my weekly take home salary is going to cover race fees! Obviously we don't have a race every weekend...wait, actually I race almost every weekend.

Do the math. Now ask me why I am racing less.

Verge Addresses Sandbagging: Will It Have Any Effect?

For years people have been justifiably complaining about blatant sandbagging in cyclocross. The accepted wisdom is that as you progress and come to dominate a category, you should graciously upgrade. Of course no one begrudges you a good result here and there, but if you are consistently placing top ten, along with 9 other guys who are also consistently placing top ten, then you and your 9 friends are effectively racing against each other. This situation leaves the rest of the 120+ person field upset. One could argue that the sandbaggers should go and have their own 10 man race and allow everyone race without them for the remaining 115 places without them.

For years various solution have been proposed and some implemented. Shaming, heckling and anonymous letter/email writing have proved ineffective at bringing the most blatant and consistent sandbaggers to justice (it is taking every once of decency in me not to include links to people's results. Wait, f*** that I am not decent: 1, 2, 3, 4 (2007), 5 ...). Please note that according to USACycling 2 wins equals a mandatory upgrade. Every one of the riders noted in this post have more than 2 wins and are still racing in the category that they achieved those wins in.

Now, I realize that sometimes someone just has a breakthrough season and does not want to upgrade because they have points in a series. In fact I caught lots of shit for sandbagging on the track in 2007 when I remained in a lower category so that I could continue to accrue points in a series. What I learned in 2007 is that you may get some results and maybe even some prizes, but along the way you lose the respect of your friends and peers. I now upgrade in a timely manner (mtb cat 1 upgrade coming after Hodges Dam on 8/2/09)

It is safe to say that people have plenty of motivation to sandbag and often little incentive to upgrade. In fact, other than personal pride, there are no rewards for upgrading, while there are plenty of rewards for dominating the lower categories (prize money, good results, podium girls/boys). I mean seriously, when you go back to work on Monday, would you rather tell your coworkers that you won a cat 4 race or that you got lapped by a pro? Remember, your coworkers have no clue about the categories and the nuances therein.

Many of us have been petitioning the organizers of the Verge Series to consider breaking apart the 2/3 field. My suggestion was that they eliminate B masters (a sandbagger category if there ever was one) and allow both cat 3's and cat 2's to have their own race. This would eliminate the huge jump from 4 to 3. As it stood in 2008, a newly minted cat 3 was racing against seriously hardened cat 2's. It just wasn't fair. It made many cat 4's reluctant to upgrade. Many that did upgrade began racing 3/4 masters to avoid the thrashing that they'd take in the 2/3 race.

Breaking apart the 2's and the 3's would also give people upgrading from 3 to 2 a meaningful upgrade. As it stands now, the upgrade from 3 to 2 only has an effect on your racing at smaller regional races. With the Verge Series taking up more and more of the race calendar, the 3 to 2 upgrade in New England is just a number on your license for most races.

So word has trickled down that Verge will have a dedicated cat 3 race. Cat 2's will race with the elites. It appears that the B masters will still exist and may even have their own series, as opposed to the Podunk regional feel of the B masters races last year (no call ups, no series, no points).

There is one lingering problem in the B field. Since there has traditionally been no reason to apply for a 3 to 2 upgrade, many of the people who were dominating the B's last year are still cat 3's, despite having enough points for multiple "mandatory" upgrades. It would be nice if USAC would to follow up and enforce their own rules...

Here's a link to a more reputable source than RMM: http://cxmagazine.com/changes-coming-to-verge-neccs-series-categories-start-times