Topic Title

I like the Seacroft Wheelers criteria for selecting entries to their 3/4 race this year, got to be better than first come first served. Priority to 1) Juniors 2) Riders from clubs in Yorkshire, 3) Riders from clubs in Yorkshire which promote BC races.
I think this is a fair way of sorting out oversubsribed 3/4 races.

I agree - surely better than the new fangled on-line entry which does appear to be first come first served?

The online entry system can be either/or - ie you can specify first come first served or state that the organiser will choose the field from the pre-entries. The latter is what Seacroft have done and what I've done (when BC finally get our online entry stuff activated..)

I've noticed the York Cycleworks race is first come first served, surely Elite racing is different and selection for an E/1/2/3 race should be done on previous performance, isn't that why you used to list your best results on the entry form.

Not wanting to appear unpopular, and not that it is worth anything, but I thought I'd add a comment. I don't like the criteria based approach as it is also inherently unfair. If you are organised enough to send off your entry 10-12 even 14 weeks in advance and show your support for the race, then surely you should get a ride. I remember having my entry sent back 7 years in a row for Thurcroft 2/3. It is partly the reason why I do not race in BC events anymore. To spend £90 for a BC licence and invest so much time and effort training for someone to send your entry back is disheartening if not heart breaking. Thurcroft were not the only ones.

Perhaps it should be pulled out of the hat? You could apply criteria and some riders never get a race, therefore wasting the £90 BC licence and membership money. That ain't fair. If you apply criteria you are saying someone is better or worth more than another person. It is discrimination and discrimination is wrong. Full stop. I have never discriminated against anyone ever and don't believe in positive discrimination either. That too is discrimination!

Right, solution -

I also find it incredibly ridiculous that someone could want to race and not be allowed to. BC just haven't got it right. Why send an entry back? If you are over subscribed for a 3/4 cat race, then put on a 3rd only and a 4ths only. You only need one set of marshals. Indeed, Lincoln Wheelers put on such an event late season every year. They had a 3/J and a 3/V event. It was excellent. Instead of having one oversubscribed event and a lot of disappointed grass-rooters, there were two events with 40ish riders which made racing far safer on the roads and far more interesting. It would also solve the problem of inexperienced riders gaining experience in a slightly smaller bunch - surely this is good. It is the same format as vets racing where they have several races on the same circuit at the same time, albeit in giffer age categories. I really really really don't understand why BC races, officials, the BC and BC race promoters don't adopt this model? Why? Is it because it is not thought up by BC and therefore bad? We don't want those giffers showing us how to do it? Anyway, food for thought for what it is worth!

Yes in an ideal world everyone who wants to race will get a ride. BC have lots of people on the payroll now and I'm sure one of them is looking into it. In the meantime what do you do when 150 people want to do a race which can only accommodate 60?
I won't mind if a young rider gets in ahead of me, I've had my day. Just as I don't nind an Elite rider, who is an Elite because he's done 20 hours a week on the bike in winter whilst I've been sitting on the sofa eating chips, getting a place in an E/1/2/3 race ahead of me.

I'm waiting for the LVRC to put 2012 races on the website, because as an old man its where I probably should race, if nothing is on that day I'll enter the Seacroft and take my chances, which just got better because I am in a club which organizes races in the area....Yippee!

First come first served is a rubbish idea full stop. Why should we be having to enter 6 mths in advance when the closing date is 3 weeks? The organisers should have some criteria for choosing entries and that is entirely up to them, but not the first out of the hat. I had 2 months off ill last summer and had to waste 60 or 70 quids worth of entries because I'd been "organised" and entered well in advance. I think it is fair to choose Elite fields on performance as the best riders dont have so many options as they have fewer events to choose from and further to travel and need more points to maintain their status!
BC racing is a bit more expensive but the cost does include a few other perks, it is possible to race something reasonably local most weeks, more variety of courses and distances and field quality. LVRC events are ok but there arent that many and they lack variety. I dont think I had any entries returned last year for BC events but I support a club that supports road racing which does make a difference these days! I havent seen that much of an issue with events being oversubscribed last year either except Seacroft which is due to the nature of the course. The harder circuits weren't so full.

Yep, first come first served is rubbish, as is selection criteria. It I entered an E/1/2/3 there could be an argument of prioritising the higher rankings, but then how would you get a ride as a 3rd cat, but then as a third cat I'm not so sure I would want to do E/1/2/3. I do realise an elite may be doing 20+ hours training and should be rewarded for that commitment, however, I don't find many of those races over-subscribed. Also, what is the commitment to an elite? Someone who works between 50-70 hours per week and fits in family as well and then manages to shoe horn, cram, organise in a bit of training to be able to race - surely that is commitment.

I disagree LVRC not being interesting races. However, the point is not LVRC races per se, moreover, the way it is organised. You could have the same level of organisation applied to the BC events and whatever BC circuit you wished. Have 3 races on all at once and cater for 3 fields with 40ish riders? That is the point in allowing more people to race and to race against people at the desired level.

So, first come first served is not desireable, but then selection criteria is also biased and discriminatory. I haven't been a member of a club for a number of years as I did not want to get involved in politics and disliked some of the aspects of club membership and some of things that went on. I preferred to stay outside and I wouldn't get as bothered or concerened. However, I have still helped out at several races when time allowed, even when not being a member of a club. I have provided lead car duties for Cliftons race - my own car and diesel and have supported the come and have a go time trail where I provided IT support and I have marshalled. But I'm not as good as anyone else because I don't "belong". Some clubs are also so small they struggle to organise events too - so they are being discriminated against as well. The point is there is not a perfect system except to quote the oft used phrase "think outside the box" and do something different? Maybe riders need to put in an appeal. Write a side of A4 stating why the should be entered and given a ride and what their case is But then I've not ridden BC for 3 years now and don't think I ever will. There seems to be enough for me with the giffer racing (which isn;t easy - ask anyone who has done one) and TLI. There was an excellent set of events down at Cuckney that I did year before last.

I was thinking of joining Clifton as it is my local club. My worry is I invariably don't have the time to give to support, having two kids, a wife who works full time and a busy job too and struggle to fit in training even though I need the health related benefits (to avoid heart related problems heridtry), so any spare time is spent with kids/wife and bike last. But I suppose just joining Clifton would make me a better person and more disireable. Just wish race organisers could think outside the box so when my little boy may start racing, he'll be able to get a ride (not that I'm a pushy parent - I'm not - he may not race but he likes riding his bike at the moment).

The LVRC races I did last year were good..attacking racing with breaks going away. There might not be any points and only £20 in a brown envelope at the end, but if you do win one you've gained the respect of some very hard riders. The guys winning A/B races are getting results in BC 2/3/4 racing, which is why I've taken a BC licence this year.

As for being in a club, I suppose it's different things to different people, you don't have to get involved, I'm sure some join just to ride the TT league. Going to marshall somewhere once or twice a year isn't a big commitment.

I realise that, as a newbie, I might not be the best person to comment, but I'll try...

My experience from listening to friends in other club sports is that cycling is actually rather odd in having clubs but then having individual event entries. Is this just a cultural thing?

In fact, I was wondering about suggesting on the North Yorks League thread that it be run as a club-team event. 10 teams could be selected soon and then each could work out how to rota 6 riders for each of the 8 events nearer the time. Apart from anything else, a team points category could be designed with a cup for the winning club to keep for a year.

And yes, I think running separate events for each category would be good as a way of widening the number of events for people to enter whilst being fairer than first-come-first-served. But doesn't this need twice as many commissaires on the course if they're concurrent?

Just an observation: where there are more riders than places, a system where previous results determine entries effectively results in a closed shop. New riders can't get rides so can't get results needed to gain rides.....

I knew this thread would get people going...

I'll steer clear of discussing why BC don't run concurrent races like LVRC because I don't want to put anything incriminating on here! Suffice it to say that, with BC (perhaps belatedly) engaging in high-level lobbying to get the relevant laws changed in order to enable proper planning and approval of race events, let's hope that the issue of increased demand is in amongst the topics being considered.

As for reducing numbers *IF* demand exceeds available places in events, then *ANY* method of doing this is going to be imperfect. Given that, I'd go for prioritising riders from clubs which organise events. I realise this has flaws in that (i) it completely ignores the fact that some riders plan their season from January and get entries off early (I'm one of 'em) and also (ii) some people help out within the sport without being members of a club. But, it's interesting that since a lot of races have been (formally or informally) run on this basis, a number of clubs have decided to start putting on events. I also realise that being member of a club doesn't guarantee that an individual puts anything into the sport other than their subs, but at least they're part of a structure which, hopefully, works to get people involved and giving, as well as taking. As per previous conversations on here, if we want low-cost racing rather than sportive-style commercial organisation and fifty-quid entry fees then it relies on participants in the sport occasionally stepping outside of participation to make things happen instead. Anything that encourages this is, I reckon, worth it.

Notwithstanding all of the above, juniors should get priority, and I've never organised an E/1/2 event so have never grappled with the different issues they bring with 'em.

Picking up Graham's point, BC events don't have a structure for team events (and I can't help feeling this would open the most b****y enormous can o' worms in respect of "who gets selected for the team") but a team prize is easily do-able - much as was done for the Tockwith races last year and for the TLI series which Cliff ran until a couple of years back. To avoid any team carting it off through weight of numbers (and then any accusation of bias in how entries get allocated) I'm sure it would be easy enough to devise an arrangement where (say) a max of three named riders per club were nominated as points scorers in each race or something like that. All of this can be done without tampering with BC's usual race structure.

Excellent, a bit of lively debate and a little conflict can be of benefit.
Right, back to the marking

No criteria will be perfect, but I have to agree that *making the criteria you use public before people enter* has to be a good thing.

Last year we got involved in a great faff because unbeknownst to anyone Seacroft were using a cap-per-club criterion for whittling down the entry. It would have been handy to know before entering...

The other thing I'd like to see considered, is earlier closing dates and BC-mandated minimum gap (2 weeks?) between circulation of the start list and the event itself. Several races last year I wasn't sure I was in until less than a week before. You need to be careful if you want more events, of imposing any burden on organisers; but if closing dates were generally 3 weeks before and start lists out 2 weeks before an event, I don't think that would be any more *work* than now; just the same work earlier on.

It all makes it a bit easier to plan what you're doing before you do it.

tom

...first two entries for the club RR arrived today...