Class Confusion

[rhiannon008]

I am new to cyclocross and have recently attempted to race. However, I am a bit confused about the classification system used at many of the ACA races here in Colorado. Often, the only categories specified for women are SW Open and SW 35+.

It was a bit of a wake up call to discover that the "open" category was filled with Cat 2 and Cat 3 racers. In fact, in the Sept. Pikes Peak Cross Race, Katie Compton rode in both the cat. 1 and open class races. (hummmm....guess who won?)


I noticed that the same ACA events have a wide array of categories for men based on skill and/or age. It seems my only choice was to get pummeled by semi-pro riders or stay home. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the challenge and was able not to finish DFL, but to call it "open" is a bit misleading as I was the only unattached rider.

Looking over the entire 2007 Colorado Cross calendar, ACA events and otherwise, I only found 2-3 races that even made category distinctions for women. Is this unusual, or the norm for women's cyclocross?

[Eden]

Women's racing (cyclocross and otherwise) usually does have fewer distinct categories than men's. Around here for road, we have cat 4's and after that everyone 3's - pro's usually have to race together. The only exception is at state championship races where you'll find master's races and separate scoring for 3's and master's A and B. For cyclocross (we just switched to the cat system this year) usually there are similar to a few more categories just because it doesn't matter if you have different groups out on the course at the same time. The one that I did had women's fields for 4's, masters, singlespeed, and 1/2/3's.

[rhiannon008]

I wish more races here were organized in the same way as the race that you did. Having no cat 4's for women seems to be counter productive for increasing women's participation in the sport. After all, I assume that lack of participation would be the common excuse for lumping all women under 35 in the same group in the first place.

[Eden]

Yeah - fields that are too small is the main excuse. We have separate 4's around here mainly because we get enough participation. I know the road races were completely combined not too long ago. Some of the women that are still on my team and still race now, started out when there was not a separate 4 field.

Now we sometimes even fill up the 4's - the field limit is 50, and a few races (especially stage races early in the year) meet the cap. The cross races usually get from 20 to 30+ in the 4's too.

Our 3's (in road and cross) are pretty rapidly growing, but race promotors are very opposed to having more fields. They don't like the idea of having to run another race during the day and they get all worked up about providing prizes - like we expect much. Socks, spare inner tubes and coffee are about what one can expect in the 4's and we don't think suddenly that will change.

[rhiannon008]

If we had cat 4's I know there would be tons more women coming out to race. If there is one thing that Colorado does not lack it's women cyclists. My feeling is that alot of them are too intimidated and/or unwilling to continually blow $35 for a race only to get trampled by cat 2 and 3 riders. So instead, each race sees the same core group of women competing against each other.

I can only imagine the uproar that would result here if for some strange reason the men's cat3 and cat4 group results were combined in a race. All hell would break loose, with cat 4's postively freaking out about the unfairness of it all.

I know there is little point to my mini rant. I guess I am just wordering how a system like this can do anything to grow women's participation in regional races.

[Eden]

I'd say try to get involved with your local racing association. Ours here in Washington is the WSBA (www.wsba.org) and topics like this are discussed at the meetings. Try to get a group of women who race and who would like to race involved too. If the organizers see that there is enough interest they might start to change their minds, but it takes people who are willing to fight for it too. A lot of organizers feel like women's racing isn't big enough and that they lose money on it.

We are starting to have the same fights over women's cat 3's here now (which is great, because it means we have enough 3's to put up a fuss!). Organizers complain that they don't have enough time and that its too expensive to hold separate races, the officials think its too complex to score a combined field separately (I say BS they do it just fine down in Oregon). I think attitudes will change, but change is slow.

[velogirl]

this is a very universal rant. even here in northern CA (the largest region within USACycling), we don't have as many women's fields as we'd like. we typically run W1/2/3 and W4 (or combined W3/4) in crits and W1/2, W3, and W4 in road races. there are probably fewer than a dozen masters women's races.

in cyclocross, each promoter runs their races slightly differently, but there are distinct categories for Women A, Women B, and Women C, and sometimes, Masters Women. typically, these fields have staggered starts but are on the course at the same time.

while I share your pain, I'll also share a couple of thoughts from a promoter's point of view.

for most road races, there is a limited amount of time that the promoter can get permits for the roads. this means that it's likely impossible to add a field without eliminating another field. there are also safety concerns with having too many bodies on the road at the same time.

for crits, you're most definitely limited by schedule. I promote a crit annually, and all the mens fields sell out (100 field limit with the exception of the CAT5s who have a 50 field limit). I also include separate Women's CAT3 and CAT4 fields. The W3 never sell out (100 field limit). The W4 comes close. So, as a promoter, my income is greatly reduced by dedicating two time slots to the W3 and W4 fields. I'm committed to doing it, however, because our mission is to promote women's cycling.

as Eden mentioned, getting involved with your local association is one way to influence the decision makers.

another suggestion is to promote your own race (and have whichever fields you want).

you can also lobby promoters to offer a separate Women's 4 field (and do your best to lobby other women racers to participate in that race). we've begged promoters to include a separate field in the past and we reward them by filling that field up.

if you want to encourage other women cyclists to race, put on an intro to racing clinic. tie it in with a specific race and then get all the women out there together.

another successful idea is to have a women's race series (like cycling made real).

yes, this is a real chicken and the egg situation. women don't race because they don't have a welcoming environment, but promoters won't create that environment because there aren't enough women who race. what to do? stick to it. be a champion for women's racing. don't give up. get your friends involved.

Lorri (who'se been racing and promoting since 2002)

[RoadRaven]

yeah... here in NZ we tend to have limited categories too - and this is because fewer women compete.

For instance, in the Club Champs TT earlier in the year I was first in my age category - but only because I was the only woman in my cat to enter.

Out of about 10-12 vet women (women over 35) I was 3rd....

At the Nationals a month or so ago, the same thing happened, because only about 8 vet women entered, they were all started together...

We just need to get more women on bikes believing that they CAN race...