Racing format in WC is not the answer

[Naas V]

"The Key Objective of the Pro Classic Series is to promote and develop positive racing within the Western Cape that will continue to generate national and international athletes."

 

 

Can't see how current format will generate national and international athletes - some of the girls "might" benefit, but also questionable.I am a Master, racing with the Vets and we passed loads of sub-vets and also elites on our way to the top of Cape Cobra finish. Most of our own group were shed even before the halfway mark.

 

Unless they group strength together(must be adjusted race for race) it will be the same of the same old thing.

 

Your thoughts...

[andydude]

So what do you propose? I can't really see them changing the line-up race every week depending on the type of race, e.g. mountain or flat, and I can't see that helping either. That's like saying that only the top 50 guys in a first stage should do the second stage together? How would you define/categorize strength.

 

If you look in terms of is the racing better with PCS compared to normal PPA I would say yes. More to ride for in GC and teams and more professional. Can't blame them trying to have a grand vision?

 

Personally my first SV season in 2010 was a big shocker, but I've worked hard and I'm doing much better now... so I've improved.

[Nix M2]

I know that this format wont encourage positive racing among the ladies. There is no need for it. We just hang on for dear life to the Vets' wheels, and see who can hold on longest. Seems that in a very hilly race, only the pro's managed, and the rest of us just raced hard behind!

I'm not complaining, as I had a good ride yesterday. But we'll see later on!!

[losttheplot]

Just make the entry criteria for cat 1 and 2 more difficult.Cat 1 should be for A and B seeding,cat 2 A-C but that would mean less money for the organizers and that is what it is all about.

[Lucky Luke.]

Just make the entry criteria for cat 1 and 2 more difficult.Cat 1 should be for A and B seeding,cat 2 A-C but that would mean less money for the organizers and that is what it is all about.

 

If Cat 1 was A and B only the bunch would be a manageable size and we might see some good racing.

[stratus5]

And who would you put in Cat2? The sub vets were nearly 15 min behind the elites. Only one or two will scrape in with a C seeding for the Cobra.

No subvets got a C for the Burger either (I think) ... first six elites only just scraped a B

[Lucky Luke.]

And who would you put in Cat2? The sub vets were nearly 15 min behind the elites. Only one or two will scrape in with a C seeding for the Cobra.

No subvets got a C for the Burger either (I think) ... first six elites only just scraped a B

 

Not sure what you mean? There are quite a few sub vets seeded in A and B. The original idea behind categories was to seed based on ability not age.

[Eugene Oppelt]

Other than the classification system, have longer races - 140 kms+

Get closer to the European circuit as possible.

[stratus5]

Not sure what you mean? There are quite a few sub vets seeded in A and B. The original idea behind categories was to seed based on ability not age.

 

I think, with the current PPA seeding criteria/calculation, very few people are qualifying for a seeding better than a C (at least in the last few fun rides, starting with the West Coast express).

 

I think after one year, they start to penalize old seedings with 5%, so in a few months many cyclists are going to drop a group or two, which will reduce the amount of eligible cyclists for CAT1 and CAT2.

 

So not so much now, but for next season ...

[Lucky Luke.]

The way I see it, the original intention was good: seed based on ability. A problem arose because (only last week) they realised cat 1 was too big, so they split it along the age boundary and we are back to square 1.

 

The right approach would surely have been to add up the sums early on, based on previous seasons and realise that cat 1 A-C was going to be way too big. It really was a predictable outcome.

 

Anyhow I'm not really complaining as I'm more competitive where I am now. But the concept of grouping by ability does seem more logical to me.

[NeverEnder]

Yes agree with Luke...

 

I would say the top half of the Sub-Vets all have a B or better seeding. Remember seeding is not based on only 2 races (Cobra; Burger)

 

The end time is also influenced by the race strategy of the day. The SubVet race was more tactical until Navel Hill & the Elites were flying from the start - therefor the big time difference. (There was also a few races last year where the Elites were looking at one another and actually got caught by the Sub-Vets)

 

Since the Subvets on average will be slower than the Elites, I think they were slightly conservative choosing A-C as standard, so not to exclude Sub-Vets that may be able to compete, but where just outside the B cut-off.

 

Unfortunately they underestimated the number of riders that registered for Cat 1 and had to split the bunch for safety reasons at the last minute. So it slightly defeated the objective.

 

So for Spring league they need to look at only A&B for Cat 1. Maybe even make B seeding harder so as to make the 2 top groups smaller still. Ideally you want no more than about 100 in a bunch.

 

With this in mind; the Sub-Vets will hopefully let it rip in the next couple of races to make those times up.

[Lucky Luke.]

I am a seeded and qualify for SV, but am racing SV Elite.

 

fixed it for you buddy.

 

The cobra kind of demonstrates the dynamics of SV vs. Elite. In Elite there are many more strong climbers than in SV - which is natural, as you get older your VO2Max numbers take a beating. Elite Team-wise there's CTM, UCT, Maties, RSAWEB, Daikin all with strong climbers who can compete with each other, and strong roleurs and sprinters who can pace, attack and help position those climbers. This makes tactics more important and makes for more exciting racing if you understand the dynamics.

 

In SV the talent is not as evenly distributed. Anderson is very much a climbing team and will go in hard with a race like the Cobra. Teams who are not confident in their climbing ability will naturally ride conservatively to try and stick with the attacks on the hills. That's why you get a much slower overall pace for SV (as it stands today) for a race like the cobra. On flatter races the SV's have the power to ride at a similar pace to the Elites (TDW for example), although this doesn't always happen (WCE).

[andydude]

I guess it comes down to improving the quality of the seeding system. Instead of the one-size-fits-all seeding system of PPA they/somebody will have to come up with a special seeding system for people who want to ride racing categories. Currently I have a PPA seeding of C and ride in the Subvet bunch, but it is almost impossible for me to upgrade to a B as I would have to finish top 10, maybe top 20, in the Elite group - see the problem? As stratus5 said - only the top 6 Elite finishers in Die Burger managed to get a seeding index (taking into account the beta and adjusted winning time) that would put them in PPA's B group. 10th in the whole Burger would have given you a C!

 

The other problem is that many of the current seedings were based on previous years that also had different seeding systems.

 

I quite enjoy racing in Subvets and had to work bloody hard not to drop, now staying in the bunch and hopefully next time racing in front!

 

I feel for the ladies - there just isn't enough to make your own group, or what do you think? Is 10 enough for racing? And why is the category 2 mainly for vets/ladies?

 

They should try to develop a seeding system where they only take e.g. 5 specific races over the last year and from there you take up to X for category 1, between X and Y for category 2 and over Y category 3 (whether you are male, female, 20y, 40y). But then the problem comes in where for most of the time you're only as good as your group, which will prohibit you from riding faster than the group and moving up to a higher category.

 

Damn this is difficult. Lets try and get good comments going and maybe somebody with stats to help us out with seeding models/ideas. We all want to see solutions so I guess we must work at it instead of only complaining.

[Lucky Luke.]

I thought the hill climb TT event was a nice idea. If they had one of those that everyone knew about, and a flat TT the next week using only non-TT equipped (road-race legal) bikes, I think that would give them a good indication of ability across the spectrum of riders.

 

Run those two events a couple weeks before Spring League starts and you'll have a great set of data with which to create your categories.

Edited January 17, 2011 by Luke.

[FBSP]

Perhaps the Elites and guys up til 30 should be Cat 1 A and B, Cat 2 could be split between A and B and have the SV and top Vets in A to start and the Ladies and Masters in B? A promotion/relegation could happen between A and B groups in Cat 2. There could easily be a way to do this, that gives everyone something to ride for all season. Eventually, you will have the same strengths racing each other, but it will take a while to reach, but in the meantime, the competition would be fierce.

[NeverEnder]

My experience in terms of seeding...

 

If you have reasonable ability, moving up to a D/C seeding is not too difficult. It is getting from C/B to A/B that is more challenging. If you are riding in C bunch, the time differences to move up becomes tougher (and on the flat races where there are 200 people finishing close together in terms of time it does not help.) You are not going to TT on your own to match the times set by the winners.

 

The only way to qualify for a A/Elite seeding is to start with A/Elite.

 

It was only the tougher summer league that allowed me to jump the next step to a high B/low A; where I think my talent also runs out and I am happy to stagnate.

 

So for a rider in Cat 2 , to move up to Cat 1 will be hard. Since you need a Cat 1 start to get a Cat 1 time on the typical PPA race.

 

So the answer is not a more complex seeding systems - you will never win. They need to look at the races. As stated, most people only managed to improve their seeding with the more challenging races. There are too many flat, short & fast 80-110km races in the calendar. We need more races like the 1-tonner, 99er etc that will present a real challenge. Specifically if we want to develop standards in Cat1 $ Cat2. The tougher race separate the groups, so if you have the ability, after a couple of races it will influence your seeding.

 

Now we only have 3-4 races in a year that really allow you to make a jump to the top level, and if team tactics or bad luck is against you - its back to square one.

 

So what are the chances & challenges to expand the race route options. We have so many possibilities in the WC - Franshoek/Villiersdorp; Wellington/Ceres; Overberg etc. It would be great to experience more than racing around Wellington via Malmesbury as is currently the case.

 

The new 99'er is a good example of a previously slightly boring route that is now a very interesting challenge. We need more of these, and it will also present more opportunities to shine if you have the legs.

 

PS - Andy on current form you will be a solid B rider long before the end of the season.